# data[].attributes.body
Remember that context is not assessed in your essay but you should still include it in your explanations (just don't write a history essay!).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The form is the type of text and genre that the writer chooses to write in. An Inspector Calls is written in the form of a play and so it is meant to be heard and seen in performance. There are to help guide actors and it is written in lines of dialogue. All productions of An Inspector Calls will be different, some might focus on a particular theme or could use staging in different ways which will give the performance a slightly different feel.

An Inspector Calls fits into three possible genres:

Well-made play

A well-made play is a popular dramatic genre from the 19th-century. In a well-made play the plot is intricate and complex and the action builds to a . This is often concerned with events that happened before the events of the play. A well-made play usually ends with a return to order but Priestley moves away from this genre with the revelation at the end.

An Inspector Calls is a well-made play because the events are all influenced by what happened to Eva Smith before the play takes place

What is the effect of this?

This structure allows J B Priestley to manipulate the audience. They do not know what happened to Eva Smith and so each revelation about her treatment by the Birlings and Gerald Croft adds to the drama. Each revelation is more shocking than the last and so Priestley cleverly builds to the climax. In An Inspector Calls there is a twist at the end of the plot - the characters are unsure if the Inspector existed at all. This gives the audience time to reflect on the events of the play. When it is revealed that another inspector is on their way and the curtain falls, the audience would be stunned.

Morality play

Morality plays were popular during the 15th and 16th-centuries. Historically they sought to teach the audience lessons that focused on the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. Whilst characters who committed these sins were punished, morality plays showed that if a character repented then they could redeem themselves.

An Inspector Calls is a morality play because all of the Birlings and Gerald Croft commit crimes which are similar to the seven deadly sins. Mr Birling is greedy because he wants more money, Sheila is guilty of wrath and envy when she spitefully complains about Eva Smith and so on. Not all of the characters manage to redeem themselves.

What is the effect of this?

Priestley uses the morality play structure to teach a 20th-century audience a series of lessons that relate to his beliefs about social responsibility, age, gender and class. The audience is invited to enjoy judging these characters - they are also forced to question their own behaviour. Priestley would have hoped that people watching the play would have left the theatre as better people.

Crime thriller

A crime thriller is a genre that tells a gripping tale based around a crime . The audience receives clues on who has committed the crime and will enjoy trying to guess what happened before the end of the action.

An Inspector Calls is a crime thriller because the action centres around the suicide of Eva Smith. Initially, as this is a suicide and not a murder investigation, it would seem that there is no clear suspect. It soon turns out that all the characters are potential suspects for different reasons.

What is the effect of this?

The crime thriller genre encourages the audience to become involved in the events of the play. In this case they would be considering who is 'more' to blame for the death of Eva Smith. Ultimately, Priestley makes the audience suspects, their behaviour is questioned and they are left wondering if they had committed any 'crimes' like the Birlings had.

How to analyse form

To analyse the form of An Inspector Calls you should:

remember that An Inspector Calls is a play and so it is meant to be seen in performance

consider how the events that happened before the action on stage keep the audience guessing

as it is a morality play, think about how the audience judges the characters and themselves

remember that the audience would be trying to work out if any one person was to blame for Eva Smith's death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Use of form in An Inspector Calls - Form, structure and language - AQA - GCSE English Literature Revision - AQA - BBC Bitesize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The form is the type of text and genre that the writer chooses to write in. An Inspector Calls is written in the form of a play and so it is meant to be heard and seen in performance. There are to help guide actors and it is written in lines of dialogue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to An Inspector Calls on Spotify.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from GCSE English RevisionPod on Spotify. In our first exploration of J.B. Priestley's 'An Inspector Calls', we look at how young people -- young people like your good selves -- are the only hope we have for the future.

# data[].attributes.headline
Revision Pod - Episode 2 - Class Divisions

# data[].attributes.subject
Revision Pod - Episode 2 - Class Divisions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls episode 2 - Class Divisions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In our second exploration of J. B. Priestley’s ‘An Inspector Calls’, Mr Gallie and Mr Forster look at how class division is presented as the root of society’s problems. From the comfort of the recording studio (A.K.A. Mr Forster’s car), we evaluate how Priestley shows a world in which those with pri…

# data[].attributes.headline
Revision Pod - Episode 3 - The Inspector

# data[].attributes.subject
Revision Pod - Episode 3 - The Inspector

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls episode 3 - The Inspector

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from GCSE English RevisionPod on Spotify. What better way to spend Friday evening than getting deep into the heart of J.B. Priestley's didactic drama 'An Inspector Calls'? None, I hear you cry, and right you are!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls episode 4 - Eva Smith

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from GCSE English RevisionPod on Spotify. Happy last day of term! A little treat to send you off on your holid... revision break!

# data[].attributes.headline
Revision Pod - Episode 5 - Responsibility

# data[].attributes.subject
Revision Pod - Episode 5 - Responsibility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls episode 5 - Responsibility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from GCSE English RevisionPod on Spotify. We all need to take more responsibility--both for those around us and, equally as crucially, for our GCSE revision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from GCSE English RevisionPod on Spotify.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from GCSE English RevisionPod on Spotify. We explore how Gerald, in spite of having some fragments of good within him, ultimately is unable to learn the lessons he needs to learn.

# data[].attributes.headline
Revision Pod - Episode 8 - Mr and Mrs Birling and Pride

# data[].attributes.subject
Revision Pod - Episode 8 - Mr and Mrs Birling and Pride

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls episode 8 - Mr and Mrs Birling and pride

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from GCSE English RevisionPod on Spotify. This episode we look at the role of pride in the older Birling's failure to learn Priestley's message.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from GCSE English RevisionPod on Spotify. 9 episodes! 9 whole episodes--you lucky, lucky revisers! This week we look at Eric, his terrible deeds and Priestley's perhaps uncomfortable presentation of him at the play's end. Can a modern audience still relate to this message in the same way?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Importance of Form in 'An Inspector Calls'

# data[].attributes.subject
The Importance of Form in 'An Inspector Calls'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Importance of Form in 'An Inspector Calls'

# data[].attributes.body
Priestley chose to write AIC as a play, rather than a novel, because of the collective response evoked from the audience (Priestley's quote above).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Inspector Calls (1945) overview

An Inspector Calls is J B Priestley 's most performed play. It's set in the household of a prosperous northern manufacturer, Arthur Birling. It's 1912 and the Birling family are celebrating the engagement of daughter Sheila, when a stranger, who introduces himself as Inspector Goole, shows up at their door. He's there to question them about the death of a young working-class woman, Eva Smith, who killed herself by drinking disinfectant. As Goole interrogates the family - Birling, his wife Sybil, his son Eric, Sheila and her fiancé Gerald - it comes to light that they have all, to some extent, been responsible for the young woman's decline in circumstances. They may not have killed her, but through action - and inaction - they all played a role in the events that led to her death. Arthur dismissed her from her job at his mill, Sheila contrived to have her fired from her new post in a department store, both Gerald and Eric slept with her and Sybil denied her charity when she came to her in desperation.

After Goole departs, Birling becomes suspicious and calls the chief constable. He discovers that there is no Inspector Goole and there have been no recent suicides. Birling and his wife see this as cause for celebration, but their children are more chastened by the night's events. The ending twists things further, concluding with a phone call to the Birlings telling them that the police are on their way to talk to them about the death of a young woman in a suspected case of suicide.

An Inspector Calls is scathing in its criticism of middle-class hypocrisy. The play gives voice to Priestley's strong socialist principles, and carries a clear moral message, stressing the importance of social responsibility: 'We don't live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other'.

Key productions of An Inspector Calls

The play was first performed in Russia (then part of the USSR) in 1945, before being produced in the UK in 1946. The role of Inspector Goole was written for Ralph Richardson, who starred in the original London production.

The play fell out of fashion for a while in the latter half of the 20th century. This changed in 1992, with Stephen Daldry's lauded and award-winning revival for the National Theatre which has itself become iconic thanks to Ian McNeill's ingenious stage design. Instead of the more familiar Edwardian interior, his set placed a miniature house in a desolate, war-ravaged landscape. Daldry's production is often credited with generating a renewed interest in Priestley's work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls by J B Priestley | The British Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore 'An Inspector Calls' and other related collection items, on the British Library's website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By using this site, you agree we can set and use cookies. For more details of these cookies and how to disable them, see our cookie policy. The novelist, playwright and broadcaster, John Boynton 'J B' Priestley, was born in Yorkshire in 1894.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alison Cullingford explores how J B Priestley's childhood in Bradford and experiences during two world wars shaped his socialist beliefs and fueled the anger of his play An Inspector Calls, a work that revolves around ideas of social responsibility and guilt.

An Inspector Calls poses troubling questions: how can people live together? To what extent are individuals responsible for others? Gareth Lloyd Evans described the play as 'perhaps the clearest expression made by Priestley of his belief that "no man is an island" - the theme is guilt and social responsibility'. This article explores how and why J B Priestley came to this belief.

'Substantial and heavily comfortable': Bradford before the War

Priestley was born in 1894 in Bradford, in Yorkshire's West Riding. Bradford was an industrial town soon to become a city (in 1897), which had grown very quickly around the wool and dyeing industries. Young 'Jack' Priestley himself found work in the wool trade, as a junior clerk with Helm and Company, whose offices were in the (now demolished) Swan Arcade.

Jack found this work dull, but otherwise, for a youngster who enjoyed sport, landscape, literature, music, art and socialising, Bradford had much to offer. In his novel Bright Day, he looked back from the austerity of 1946 to a golden age of freedom, plenty, hospitality, conviviality, generosity, solid comfort and strong community, where, at Christmas,

brass bands played and choirs sang in the streets; you went not to one friend's house but to a dozen; acres of rich pound cake and mince-pies were washed down by cataracts of old beer and port, whisky and rum; the air was fragrant and thick with cigar smoke, as if the very mill chimneys had taken to puffing them.

The bright young lad realised even then, though, that Bradford was not perfect. Working and living conditions had improved from the hellish days of the 1840s, when cholera and starvation were serious threats, but many still lived in poverty. Priestley's political views were heavily influenced by the West Riding's strong Nonconformist socialist traditions, embodied by the Bradford Pioneer newspaper and epitomised by his schoolteacher father, Jonathan.

Jack also noticed that the city's respectable folk could be smug, even hypocritical: 'badly-divided men' were pompously religious on Sundays, but on Saturday nights 'coarsely raffish', ill-using young women. In When We Are Married (1937), Priestley made great comedy of turning the world of three respectable couples upside down when it emerged that they had not been legally married. An Inspector Calls also shattered the world of such a family, this time, however, revealing the true social and political consequences of the selfishness of the Birlings and others like them.

The First World War: men thrown away for nothing

This world was itself shattered by the Great War, which broke out in August 1914. Twenty-year-old Jack, drawn to prove himself, went alone to Halifax to volunteer for the Duke of Wellington's West Riding Regiment. He served in the British Army for five years, as a private and lance-corporal, and, much later, as an officer with the Devonshires.

Photograph of J B Priestley as a lance corporal, 1915

J B Priestley volunteered for the army in September 1914 at the age of 19. This photograph was taken in the summer of 1915 just before he was sent to the Western Front.

Usage terms © The Estate of J.B. Priestley. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. Please credit the copyright holder when reusing this work.

© J.B. Priestley Archive, Special Collections, University of Bradford.

Despite being buried alive by a trench mortar explosion and gassed, Priestley survived relatively unscathed physically; but the experience of war changed him forever. He bore witness to the horrors of the front and his realisation of the implications of social inequalities that went far beyond what he had seen in his home city. As he wrote in his memoir, Margin Released (1962):

The British command specialised in throwing men away for nothing. The tradition of an officer class, defying both imagination and common sense, killed most of my friends as surely as if those cavalry generals had come out of the chateaux with polo mallets and beaten their brains out. Call this class prejudice if you like, so long as you remember ... that I went into that war without any such prejudice, free of any class feeling. No doubt I came out of it with a chip on my shoulder; a big, heavy chip, probably some friend's thigh-bone.

Bradford could never be the same for Priestley after the war: so many of his friends had been killed, many of them in the 'Bradford Pals' battalions destroyed at the Battle of the Somme. After a venture into academia, taking his degree at the University of Cambridge, he decided to focus on writing and moved to London. The 1920s were years of hard work to make a living. We have the sense that he had a kind of survivor's guilt: he had to make something of his life when so many better men had been killed.

Letter from J B Priestley from the trenches, 1916

This letter, with its original envelope, was sent by J B Priestley to his family from the trenches in 1916.

Usage terms © The Estate of J.B. Priestley. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. Please credit the copyright holder when reusing this work.

© J.B. Priestley Archive, Special Collections, University of Bradford.

His 1929 bestseller, The Good Companions, gave him the financial security to experiment with new literary forms. Priestley turned to drama with great success: he was to re-use the thriller form of his first effort, Dangerous Corner, in An Inspector Calls.

Celebrity also gave him a platform to share his increasing social concerns. In English Journey (1934), he described what he saw when travelling around England by motor coach: the remnants of old rural England, the shocking deprivation of the declining industrial cities and the glamour of the modern Americanised world of arterial roads and cinemas. Of the 'grimy desolation' of 'Rusty Lane' in West Bromwich, he said:

There ought to be no more of those lunches and dinners, at which political and financial and industrial gentlemen congratulate one another, until something is done about Rusty Lane and West Bromwich. While they exist in their present foul shape, it is idle to congratulate ourselves about anything.

Priestley confronted his own wartime past at a regimental reunion in Bradford. He was outraged to learn that some of his fellow veterans were too poor to afford evening clothes to attend the event. They had given their health, their futures, everything they had, for a society that did not care. This righteous anger would be seen again in An Inspector Calls.

Programme note by J B Priestley about An Inspector Calls

J B Priestley wrote this programme note about An Inspector Calls for a production at the Mermaid Theatre, 1972-74.

Usage terms © The Estate of J.B. Priestley. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. Please credit the copyright holder when reusing this work.

© J.B. Priestley Archive, Special Collections, University of Bradford.

The staggering power of broadcasting

During the Second World War, Priestley's fame rose to new heights, largely thanks to his BBC radio broadcasts, the 'Postscripts'. In his first Postscript, of 5 June 1940, he helped create the narrative of the Dunkirk evacuation as mythic victory, paying tribute to the frivolous little steamers which saved so many lives. Throughout that momentous summer and early autumn, Priestley continued these weekly broadcasts, boosting morale through homely, often funny, reflections, musing, for example, on a pie which survived the bombing of Bradford and some happy ducks in a pond.

Usage terms © Gerti Deutsch / Picture Post / Getty Images

Priestley took an active part in a debate that went on in Britain throughout the war: was it appropriate to discuss what should happen afterwards, and if so, what should that be? He used the Postscripts to influence opinion on this issue, calling for a better, fairer society after this war was over. Carefully gauging what might be acceptable to broadcast, Priestley used everyday examples likely to be familiar to his listeners to make his points. His most outspoken Postscript, of 6 October 1940, uses the problem of the 'idle rich' occupying scarce hotel rooms from which bombed-out families could benefit to make the point that:

We are floundering between two stools. One of them is our old acquaintance labelled 'Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost', which can't really represent us, or why should young men, for whom you and I have done little or nothing, tear up and down the sky in their Spitfires to protect us, or why should our whole community pledge itself to fight until Europe is freed? The other stool ... has some lettering round it that hints that free men could combine, without losing what's essential to their free development, to see that each gives according to his ability, and receives according to his need.

The wording of that second stool, which as Priestley reminded his listeners was the stuff of Christian sermons, is almost exactly Karl Marx's famous 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' which appeared in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

It is often stated that the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, had Priestley 'taken off the air' as a result of this sort of discussion, and for using the Postscripts as a platform for sharing his views on building a better world post-war. Certainly, Priestley's radio talks worried many politicians and journalists; the end of the Postscripts was, however, at least in part his own decision and the hand of the Prime Minister cannot be definitely traced in it.

A new and vital democracy?

Away from the airwaves, Priestley could be much more candid about his views. Out of the People (1941) came out of his role as chairman of the 1941 Committee, a group of writers and politicians whose statement 'We Must Win' called for a declaration of national 'ideas and objectives after the war'. In Out of the People, Priestley outlined the need for a 'new and vital democracy', an end to the waste and unfairness of social inequalities, a world in which everyone was responsible for others. The upheaval of war was shattering old systems and bringing people together to work for a common goal. Why not build on this, rather than going back to old failed systems as had happened after the previous war?

Priestley's Postscripts and other broadcasting and writing certainly played their part in encouraging people to think about the shape post-war society should take, and thus helped pave the way for Clement Attlee's Labour Party to sweep to power in the general election of July 1945. The Labour mandate was to create a 'welfare state' and a national health service, eliminating the shocking poverty observed by Priestley and so many other reporters.

However, the new government was not quite what Priestley had in mind. He disliked the centralised planning and bureaucracy that became synonymous with state socialism in the 20th century. Indeed, he stood unsuccessfully as an independent candidate in the 1945 election!

A Russian journey

An Inspector Calls was born out of this tumultuous wartime debate about society, though Priestley had first thought of using a mysterious inspector years before. He had then mentioned the idea to a theatrical director, Michael MacOwen, who reminded him about it during the autumn of 1944. Priestley was enthused by the idea, found it in his 'little black notebook', and quickly wrote a playscript based around it.

No suitable theatre was available in London, so in May 1945 Priestley sent the script to his Russian translator to see if there was any interest (his work was already popular in the Soviet Union). An Inspector Calls was thus first seen in productions by the Kamerny Theatre and the Leningrad Theatre in Moscow, followed by a European tour ending at the Old Vic in London.

Poster for An Inspector Calls at the Leningrad Comedy Theatre, 1945

Priestley could not find a London theatre for An Inspector calls so he sent his script to Moscow. This is the original poster from the world premiere of the play at the Leningrad Comedy Theatre, Moscow, in 1945.

Usage terms © J.B. Priestley Archive, Special Collections, University of Bradford.

Priestley and his wife Jane later travelled to the USSR, as guests of the Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries; he wrote about his experiences for the Sunday Express, his articles being reprinted in the pamphlet 'Russian Journey'. Priestley found the Russian people highly congenial and wrote sympathetically about a country that had recently been Britain's wartime ally. Later he was to realise more about the nature of the regime.

Usage terms J B Priestley: © The Estate of J.B. Priestley. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. Please credit the copyright holder when reusing this work. Photographs: This material is in the Public Domain.

The play embodies Priestley's reasons for calling for the 'new and vital democracy' by showing the personal consequences of a selfish society, and the future that would result if lessons were not learned about being 'responsible for each other': 'If men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in blood and fire and anguish'. This future might be the Great War which Priestley's 1945 audiences knew was just two years ahead for his 1912 protagonists, or it might be a terrible revolution yet to come: his Russian audiences had seen just that when the frustrations of an unequal society had led to violent revolution and terrible suffering.

Such ambiguities Priestley leaves in the play, along with its origins in his own past and his deepest beliefs, allowing it to work for audiences worldwide ever since, despite its historical origins in a complacent 1912 and his bleak yet hopeful 1945.

Footnotes:

[1] Gareth Lloyd-Evans, J B Priestley: The Dramatist (London: Heinemann, 1964), p. 184.

[2] Parts of this piece are based on blog posts by the author, from the University of Bradford sites 100 Objects Bradford and the Special Collections blog.

[3] J B Priestley, Bright Day (London: Heinemann, 1946), p. 81.

[4] J B Priestley, Margin Released (London: Heinemann, 1962), p. 63.

[5] J B Priestley, Margin Released, p. 137.

[6] J B Priestley, English Journey (London: Heinemann and Gollancz, 1934), p. 115.

[7] J B Priestley, Postscripts (London: Heinemann, 1940), p. 90.

[8] Alison Cullingford, Postscript Sunday 20 October 1940, https://specialcollectionsbradford.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/postscript-sunday-20-october-1940/ Blog post summarising what is known about the end of the Postscripts and linking to further sources of information on this still controversial issue.

Written by Alison Cullingford

Alison Cullingford is Special Collections Librarian at the University of Bradford, where she is responsible for over 100 collections of modern archives and rare books. An active member of the CILIP Rare Books and Special Collections Group, she regularly presents, blogs and tweets on the importance of the special collections librarian.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
an inspector calls and j b priestley’s political journey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls and J B Priestley's political journey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alison Cullingford explores how J B Priestley's childhood in Bradford and experiences during two world wars shaped his socialist beliefs and fueled the anger of his play An Inspector Calls, a work that revolves around ideas of social responsibility and guilt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discovering Literature An Inspector Calls in Context Resource v2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls  teachers notes  updated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Barry Cryer nods to his Yorkshire roots by choosing JB Priestley, author of The Good Companions and An Inspector Calls. With Matthew Parris and Martin Wainwright. From January 2011.

Barry Cryer nods to his Yorkshire roots in choosing JB Priestley, the Bradford born author of The Good Companions and An Inspector Calls. Barry knew JB for the last ten years of his life, and fondly recalls visiting a man he loved with two members of Monty Python. Other memories include a trip to the Cafe Royal, and thoughts on Priestley's notorious love of women.

Martin Wainwright, northern editor of the Guardian, presenter of last year's radio documentary about the Postscripts, also brings to life a prolific writer nearly killed in World War One. Some say he wrote so much to avoid the memories of that war. Recorded in front of an audience at the Arnolfini in Bristol, the programme includes colourful clips of JB Priestley and also Priestley's son, Tom. The only discordant note is raised by presenter Matthew Parris: "It's awfully watchable, awfully readable ... but where's the magic ? Is Priestley really very good ?"

The producer is Miles Warde.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Barry Cryer nods to his Yorkshire roots by choosing JB Priestley, author of The Good Companions and An Inspector Calls. With Matthew Parris and Martin Wainwright. From January 2011. Barry Cryer nods to his Yorkshire roots in choosing JB Priestley, the Bradford born author of The Good Companions and An Inspector Calls.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plot Overview: 'An Inspector Calls' by J.B. Priestley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC One - An Inspector Calls - Characters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Structure of 'An Inspector Calls' - GCSE English Literature Revision

# data[].attributes.headline
From Start to Finish: A Detailed Analysis of 'An Inspector Calls'

# data[].attributes.subject
From Start to Finish: A Detailed Analysis of 'An Inspector Calls'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Previously posted in four parts, the below is a detailed moment by moment analysis of An Inspector Calls written to be both rigorous and accessible to students. It covers the entire play from start to finish. Setting the Scene

The play opens with a set of detailed and specific stage directions and Priestley's use of stagecraft, here, introduces the audience to some of the play's key themes.

The play begins in the Birling's dining room, which is described as containing 'good solid furniture' (1) and of being 'heavily comfortable, but not cosy and homelike' (1).

The play begins in medias res with the family enjoying an 'intimate' (1) family dinner. A parlour maid is described as clearing the table of 'dessert plates and champagne glasses' (1) whilst also providing a 'decanter of port, cigar box and cigarettes' (1).

These items are all symbols of status and power: the Birling's ostentatious display of wealth would have immediately introduced them to what would have certainly been a largely socialist audience as unashamedly upper class.

This would have been especially galling for an audience who has just gone through rations and rejected the materialism that the Birling family now revel in.

Thus, one might describe these items as symbols that embodies the materialistic values of Edwardian society, which Priestley sought to dismantle and challenge.

There is immediately created an antagonistic distance between audience and Birling family, which would make Priestley's subsequent critique of their attitudes all the more effective.

The Dinner Party: Meeting the Family

On the surface the gathering between Mr Birling, Mrs Birling, Eric, Sheila, and Eric seems convivial and intimate: they appear to be having a pleasant evening and are clearly celebrating something.

However, even in these early exchanges one begins to notice something amiss.

For instance, notice how the characters treat Edna. The very first line of the play, spoken by Birling, is a request for Edna to refill his port. Then once she has done this Mrs Birling dismisses her only to declare she will soon be summoned again: 'All right Edna. I'll ring from the drawing-room when we want coffee. Probably in about half an hour' (2).

Throughout the play and established at the very beginning Edna is treated as just another prop, someone to be ordered around. Whilst these dismissive attitude towards the working class (itself a foreshadowing of later events of the play) would have been typical of the Edwardian age it would not have been looked upon favourably by the now socialist post-war audience.

The disjunction between Edwardian values and post-war values is continues to be played out in the next few lines when Mrs Birling says this to her daughter: 'When you're married you'll realize that men have important work to do sometimes have to spend nearly all their time and energy on their business. You'll have to get used to that, just as I had' (3).

There are several interesting things to say about this comment:

There is created a clear hierarchical distinction between men and women where men 'have important work to do' and women must make themselves busy with something of far less importance.

This is said by Mrs Birling: she has internalised the social norms of the Edwardian period. It is not simply that men are telling women what to do, but that Mrs Birling is complicit in this also. The patriarchal ideology is so entrenched within society that it is adopted and accepted by Mrs Birling.

There is a sense of resignation: there is nothing that can be done about this and as such Sheila will just have 'to get used to that'. This also speaks to the idea that this ideology has been passed down through the generations: just as Mrs Birling accepted the ideology so too, in time, will Sheila. However, it is exactly this cycle that Priestly seeks to break through his play. Notice, for instance, that Sheila's response to this is: 'I don't believe I will' (half playful, half serious)' (3). She may only be half serious now, but by the end of the play she will be entirely serious.

The audience soon discovers that the reason for the dinner party is to celebrate the engagement between Sheila and Gerald. However, Mr Birling's initial speech is quite telling: 'Your father and I have been friendly rivals in business for some time now - though Crofts Limited are both older and bigger than Birling and Company - and now you've brought us together, and perhaps we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together - for lower costs and higher prices' (4).

It is clear that what most excites Birling about the engagement is the prospect of merging his business with that of Gerald's father and as such the ability to reduce prices and increase prices.

This latter comment would have been anathema (despised) to the socialist audience: they were instead working towards a much more egalitarian society predicated on welfare and civic responsibility.

The Dinner Party: Mr Birling's Wisdom

In one of the longest speeches of the opening section Mr Birling offers Sheila and Gerald some advice: 'There's a good deal of silly talk about these days - but - and I speak as a hard-headed businessman [...] I say ignore all this silly pessimistic talk [...] there's a lot of wild trouble about possible labour trouble in the near future. Don't worry. We've passed the worst of it' (6).

And there's more: 'Just because the Kaiser makes a speech or two, or a few German officers have too much to drink and begin talking nonsense, you'll hear some people say that war's inevitable. And to that I say - fiddlesticks!' (6).

And still more: 'Why a friend of mine went over this new liner last week - the Titanic - she sails next week - and unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable' (7).

And all of this to say: 'There'll be peace and prosperity and rapid progress everywhere' (7).

Each of these examples is what is called dramatic irony: there is a slippage between what the character says and what the audience knows to be true. In other words, we know something they do not.

For example, when Birling says that there would be no labour trouble a 1945 audience would be only too aware of the 1926 General Strike and they would be only too aware of the war that did take place and which most of them fought in. They would also know that the Titanic did sink and that there certainly was not 'peace and prosperity and rapid progress everywhere'.

What is especially interesting is the derision with which Birling speaks of those who disagree with him. The lexical choice of 'fiddlesticks' in relation to the war would have been especially infuriating for an audience who had just lived through a war and almost certainly known people who had died in it. To speak of the war in such a flippant manner would have, to say the least, aggravated the audience.

Notice also the polysyndeton used in the sentence 'There'll be peace and prosperity and rapid progress everywhere': the abundance of conjunctions would have only served to heighten the mounting anger as the audience is forced to listen to Birling list things that did not happen.

By utilising dramatic irony in this manner Priestley is able to open Birling up to ridicule: the audience immediately assume he is not only an idiot, but also a character to be reviled.

Birling is created in such a way as to be a caricature of the typical Edwardian capitalist.

Priestly seeks to undermine these values by associating them with a character such as Birling and as such disrupt the entrenched ideology that he represents and propagates.

This point is made even more explicit later in this same section and immediately before the Inspector arrives when Birling declares: 'But what so many of you don't seem to understand now, when things are so much easier, is that a man has to make his own way - has to look after himself - and his family too, of course, when he has one [...] But the way some of these cranks talk and write now, as if we were all mixed up together like bees in a hive - community and all that nonsense [...] a man has to mind his own business and look after himself' (10).

This is exactly the mentality that Priestly seeks to critique: that a person is willing not only to abdicate his own responsibility, but also chastise those who have retained it is precisely the problem with society as Priestly sees it.

The moral lesson that the plays seeks to impart is the necessity of acting as part of a wider 'community': it is not 'nonsense', but the only way to ensure that history does not repeat itself and this is what Priestly sought to enshrine through Attlee's Labour Party.

Notice also how Birling mentions his family almost as though they were an afterthought: not only does he abdicate his civic responsibility, but also his familial one.

Birling is everything that is wrong with society: he is the apotheosis of the Edwardian ideology that ultimately resulted in war. He is not only hard headed, but also hard hearted and cares only for himself.

The Inspector Arrives

What is especially interesting about the Inspector's arrival is that it takes place immediately after Birling's speech in which he chastises the very notion of 'community and all that nonsense' and instead declares that a man has to 'look after himself and his own' (10)

Interrupting this speech is the following stage direction: 'We hear the sharp ring of a front door bell. Birling stops to listen' (10).

The Inspector disrupts Birling's speech and therefore represents, from the very start of the play, the disruption of the ideology that Birling was espousing. Notice also Priestley's use of 'sharp': this is not going to be a pleasant encounter, but rather has violent connotations as the Inspector's arrival pops Birling's ideological bubble.

The Inspector is described as creating 'an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness' (11) who speaks 'carefully, weightily, and has a disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person he addresses' (11). He is also described elsewhere as 'cutting in' (31).

What is interesting about this description is the lexical field of 'solidity': the Inspector becomes the moral bedrock on which the play is founded and this is in contrast to Birling's often fragmented speech, which is often interrupted by hyphens.

Notice also how he is described as 'looking hard at the person he addresses': he is to shine a spotlight on the actions of the Birling family and this is reflected by the way in which the light changes, upon the Inspector's entrance, from 'pink and intimate' (1) to a 'brighter and harder' (1) colour.

This is further suggested in the National Theatre Production where the Birling family live in a doll's house, which then swings open upon the Inspector's arrival: the Inspector is to lay bare and unpick the moral assumptions, which have determined the family's actions.

He is moral compass and Priestley's mouthpiece: he is the textual mechanism through which the play is able to impart its didactic message.

The arrival of the Inspector is a consequence of the behaviour of the Birling family and as such there exists a causal (cause and effect) link between the two: the Inspector exists because the Birling family have abdicated civic responsibility just as the play exists because of the action of society at large.

One might even consider Inspector Goole's name, which is a homonym for 'ghoul'. A ghoul is a phantom that is said to feed on dead bodies and can also describe a person who is morbidly obsessed with death. Given the Inspector is there to investigate the death of Eva Smith this is an apt description, but it might also suggest that the Inspector is to feed on the Birling family.

Mr Birling's response to the Inspector's arrival is to seek refuge in his reputation: 'I was an alderman for years - and Lord Mayor two years ago - and I'm still on the Bench - so I know the Brumley police officers pretty well' (11).

This again suggests something of his moral vacuity, since he has no ability to defend himself through his own actions and substance, but rather must rely on his connections to other people. It also suggests the corrupt way in which those in power wield their influence to escape civic responsibility, exactly what the Inspector seeks to correct and challenge.

The Inspector and Mr Birling

It is quickly revealed by the Inspector that Eva Smith once worked in Mr Birling's factory and that he fired her.

However, as this happened over two years before the evening of her suicide Birling refuses to accept any responsibility: 'I can't accept any responsibility. If we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody we'd had anything to do with, it would be very awkward, wouldn't it?' (14).

It is exactly this abdication of responsibility that Priestley seeks to undermine and by articulating it through Birling, a character already established as a figure of ridicule, he is, by extension, able to make the critique all the more effective.

Birling then concedes that the reason he fired Eva was because she asked for a raise to which his justification is: it's my duty to keep labour costs down' (15) and then also 'If you don't come down sharply on some of these people, they'd soon be asking the earth' (15).

The lexical choice of 'duty' highlights the disparity between what Birling thinks his responsibility is and what the Inspector thinks it ought to be: for Birling his own concern is his pocket and not workers such as Eva.

Furthermore, to a post-war audience, 'duty' would have had connotations of war ('do your duty') and as such Birling's comments would have seemed even more trivial and as such further heightened the distance between him and the audience.

It would have been particularly galling for an audience that may well have lost loved ones, even fought in the war themselves, to hear the concept of 'duty' being repurposed to include lining one's own pockets. If Birling starting the play as a figure to lampoon with his misguided comments about the Titanic, he is quickly becoming a figure of loathing

One might also consider the lexical choice of 'these people' when referring to Eva: this dehumanises his workers by lumping them all together and as such demonstrates the entrenched prejudice that upper class had for lower class.

Birling does not see his workers as individuals with emotions and personal problems, but as tools that can do his bidding.

The Inspector, indeed the play as a whole, seeks to provide a platform for those workers otherwise denied representation.

The Inspector and Sheila

At this point in the play Sheila re-emerges interrupting the Inspector's interrogation of Mr Birling.

The exchange between Sheila and her father is significant: 'What's all this about?' // 'Nothing to do with you, Sheila. Run along.' (17).

The belittling way in which Birling speaks to his daughter betrays the patriarchal nature of Edwardian society. In the same way that Mrs Birling spoke of leaving men to do man's business so too does Mr Birling seek to exclude his daughter from this conversation.

Notice also the phrase 'Run along'. Firstly, the fact that it is an imperative and also the use of the short, snappy syntax reinforces that, as far as Mr Birling is concerned, what he says is absolute. Secondly, it is something that would usually be said to a child thus highlighting Birling's view of Sheila.

Throughout these initial exchanges Sheila grows in confidence and ultimately challenges the prejudices of her father: 'But these girl's aren't cheap labour - they're people' (19). Clearly, this isn't a distinction that Birling understands.

Shelia's denouncement of her father engages with one of the main themes of the play: the young generation are the ones most susceptible to change. This motif will be continued and developed as the play progresses.

Despite Sheila's apparent integrity it quickly becomes apparent that she also played a role in Eva's downfall, and upon discovering this, so the stage directions tell us, 'she gives a high-stifled sob, and then runs out' (21).

Just like her father Sheila abdicates her responsibility: rather than facing her accuser she instead runs away. However, significantly, she does return, ultimately fully accepting responsibility for her actions and pledging never to repeat them.

Whilst she has gone there is a particularly illuminating exchange between Birling and the Inspector. Birling comments: 'We were having a nice little family celebration tonight. And a nasty little mess you've made of it now, haven't you?' (21). The Inspector then responds: 'That's more or less what I was thinking earlier tonight, when I was in the Infirmary looking at what was left of Eva Smith. A nice little promising life there, I thought, and a nasty mess somebody's made of it' (21).

The juxtaposition between these two comments and the repetition of key phrases serves to highlight the disparity between Birling and the Inspector and by extension they values they represent: what matters most to Birling is his celebration, but what matters most to the Inspector is the life of Eva.

Birling is brutally insular whilst the Inspector is compassionately communal.

Upon her return the audience discovers the role that Sheila played more exactly.

Whilst shopping at Milward's she tried on a dress and caught Eva smirking at her believing that she was mocking her and because Eva was beautiful Sheila became jealous and requested that she be fired, which she was.

This perhaps tells us something about how the upper class control the working class: both Mr Birling and his daughter are in a position to have Eva fired and they wield this influence to disastrous effect.

This further highlights just how dependent people are on their jobs and as such the need for strict laws surrounding the work place, which Attlee's Labour government sought to implement.

As the play continues, Sheila's transformation and willingness to change her behaviour comes to represent and symbolise exactly the kind of change Priestley hopes his audience will make.

Sheila, unlike Mr Birling, comes to represent the moral template which the audience ought to emulate; a change provoked by the Inspector within the world of the play and perhaps, one might imagine, by Priestley himself out of it

The Inspector and Gerald

At the end of Act One the Inspector reveals that Eva often went by a different name (Daisy Renton) and upon hearing this Gerald shows obvious recognition.

In an effort to remove Sheila from earshot Gerald says: 'I think Miss Birling ought to be excused any more of this questioning. She's nothing more to tell you. She's had a long, exciting and tiring day [...] and now she's obviously had about as much as she can stand' (27).

In the same condescending tone that Mr Birling adopted earlier in the play, Gerald seeks to assert his patriarchal influence by speaking on Sheila's behalf and as such suppressing her voice.

As well as very obviously patronising, there is even an undertone here of something more sinister: he seeks to control Sheila, not only what and how she ought to think but even to exert a certain control over her body by suggesting she should be removed and that she is tired. This apparent willingness to exert control over Sheila foreshadows much of the subsequent revelations about Gerald's pernicious interactions with Eva

Yet, Sheila does not accept this and assertively states that she is staying. This represents a significant change in her tone and manner that will continue throughout the play, but it also highlights Sheila's ability to reject Gerald's attempted control in a way that Eva could not. Perhaps Priestley is hinting already at the success of the Inspector's interrogations.

Before Gerald has a chance to relay his involvement Mrs Birling appears and attempts to end the Inspector's inquiry with this comment: 'I don't suppose for a moment that we can understand why the girl committed suicide. Girls of that class -' (30).

This demonstrates the clear class prejudice that both Mr and Mrs Birling share and Priestley's choice of 'that' has the same dehumanising effect that Mrs Birling's earlier use of 'these' had. One can even imagine the actress spitting out this word, exhibiting, as it does, a certain repulsion that Mrs Birling has for 'girls of that class'

Furthermore, it also emphasises that for Mrs Birling all that matters is Eva's class: her worth and value as a human is inextricably linked to her social class and, again, this is the view that in writing the play Priestley sought to challenge and subvert.

At this point we discover Gerald's true involvement: he met Eva whilst at an event and took her, as he would like us to think at least, under his wing. He offered her a place to stay and gave her money and she soon became his mistress.

As Shelia summarises: 'Gerald set her up as his mistress and then dropped her when it suited him' (41).

To Gerald Eva is disposable: he is able to do what he wants with her without any consideration of the consequences. She is simply a plaything to him and as her name suggest she is, in his view, for 'rent'.

Indeed, the way in which Gerald speaks of Eva helps to capture this rather insidious attitude: she looked, he says, 'young and fresh' and was 'out of place'. Priestley makes it clear, here, that Gerald recognised Eva's vulnerability and took advantage of it for his own ends.

The use of 'fresh' is especially revealing and a rather odd way in which to describe someone. 'Fresh' suggests vulnerability and youth, and as such the promise of a future squandered, but also indicates Gerald's sexual attraction to Eva. It implies a rather sickening recognition and awareness of her inexperience and the ability for this to be exploited and leveraged.

Gerald knowingly and manipulatively 'set her up' and in doing so manufactured a situation where Eva depended upon him for the necessities of life (food and shelter) so that he could, at his own whims, sexually exploit her, finally 'dropping' her when it no longer suited him.

The cruelty at the crux of the play is that different people held power over and had control of Eva, and perhaps none so as manipulatively and insidiously as Gerald.

Whether it be as an employer, as a customer where she works, or as a man she turns to for help, people had power over Eva and then abused that power for their own ends.

At its most fundamental the play is an attempt to provoke a reconfiguration of society where no one person has a monopoly over the life of another.

The Inspector and Mrs Birling

It soon transpires that Mrs Birling chaired the Brumley Women's Charity and Eva sought help from her.

At this point in the play it is revealed that Eva was pregnant when she committed suicide and she asked for help from the charity in order that she might better look after the child.

One reason that Mrs Birling denied the request of help, aside from her class prejudice, was that Eva used the name Birling, which Mrs Birling describes as a 'damned impudence' (43).

Mrs Birling also explains that she refused to help her because 'she wasn't married' (44), which would have been especially frowned upon in Edwardian society.

Thus, instead of helping her Mrs Birling casts her aside. There is an interesting parallel here to Gerald who, unlike Mrs Birling, 'sets her up'. Yet, Priestley seems to suggest both act without care for Eva, seeing her as disposable and someone able to be discarded

What is especially interesting about Mrs Birling is the complete lack of emotion she has for Eva: 'I did nothing I'm ashamed for [...] I used my influence to have it refused. And in spite of what happened to the girl since, I consider I did my duty' (44).

Again, Priestley's use of 'duty' in this context would have been especially jarring for a post-war audience: the conception of duty that Mr and Mrs Birling have is eternally different from the conception of duty that Priestly seeks to cultivate.

Furthermore, it comes to light that the reason Eva needed help in the first place is because the person who had previously been helping her (the father of the baby) had been stealing money and Eva did not want to be involved in this.

Yet, because her view is tainted by class prejudice Mrs Birling does not believe her: 'As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!' (47).

Even more perverse is that Mrs Birling, by her own admission, uses her 'influence' to turn the committee against Eva. It was not the case she was passive in her refusal, but, one assumes, actively sought to persuade others to reject Eva's appeals. This is a cruel perversion of the kind of communal society Priestley envisages where we are all 'members of one body'.

Likewise, Priestley's evocation of 'influence', similar to Sheila leveraging her influence to have Eva fired, underlines the way in which influence wielded by the wrong people can lead to a disastrous outcome. Better, perhaps, Priestley is suggesting, not to have such power in the hands of prejudiced individuals, but rather an accountable government.

Mrs Birling, perhaps more so than the other characters, represents a complete abdication of responsibility and a complete lack of remorse: she utterly abused her position of power.

Contrast, for instance, Mrs Birling's cold reaction to Eva's death with Sheila's now sickened reaction: 'No! Oh - how horrible - horrible' (45). The short syntax and fragmentary speech mimics her now disjointed frame of mind and she comes to realise what has taken place.

This section of the play also functions as a social commentary on the efficacy of charitable bodies. In the Edwardian Period if a person needed help they would typically go to a charity and rely on the 'kindness of strangers'. However, the Welfare State saw to put an end to this. Thus, the play might be seen as an attempt to justify the introduction of the Welfare State by denigrating the previous system of charity, teasing out its many flaws.

In a manner far more pernicious and cruel than ether Sheila or Mr Birling, we see in Gerald and Mrs Birling a willing and unashamed capacity to wield power over another person and to treat them as utterly disposable. Eva suffered at the hands of both and neither, one feels, have learnt their lesson.

The challenge, indeed moral injunction, that the play presents to its audience, whether now or 70 years ago, is to ensure we do not follow in the footsteps of Gerald or Mrs Birling.

The Inspector and Eric

After having left earlier in the play Eric now returns.

It gradually comes to light that Eric was the father to Eva's unborn child and that he stole money (from his father) ostensibly to support her.

What is especially telling is that upon his parents hearing of this their first concern is that he stole money: 'Eric! You stole money!' (12).

So obsessed are they with their wealth and status that what is most horrible about the event is not that Eric abandoned Eva only for her to kill herself shortly after, but that he stole money from the family company.

As the Inspector probes further, the manner of Eric's initial meeting with Eva is made apparent. He walked back with her to her lodgings, explaining: 'Yes, I insisted - it seems. I'm not very clear about it, but afterwards she told me she didn't want me to go in but that - well, I was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty - and I threatened to make a row'

This is, whatever way one looks at it, an extremely chilling admission and one worth us pausing over:

Priestley's use of 'insisted' immediately establishes the power dynamic between Eric and Eva where she, as ever, is stripped of autonomy and power. She has, it would seem, no recourse to say no to Eric

This is made even more clear in the next section of this revelation that Eva 'didn't want me to go in'. It is not, it seems, that she did not express a preference, but that clearly she did and that Eric, nevertheless, ignored, or actively rejected, this preference. Again, Eva is depicted as vulnerable and powerless with Eric a predator whose drunken desires outweigh what Eva wants. She does not, in this moment, have the ability to control her own fate, as was ever the case

Eric then explains why it was Eva could not reject Eric's unwanted advances as, apparently, he 'was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty'. Clearly, Eva felt threatened by what Eric might do next, and one could only surmise there is the threat of physical violence unless Eva does what he 'insists' upon

Looking at the situation that is being depicted, the obvious hierarchy that exists between Eva and Eric, and the threat of possible violence unless Eva capitulates, it would be difficult not to describe their subsequent sexual encounter as rape

This is an abhorrent moment that helps Priestley to cement the overarching trajectory of Eva's character: she is a powerless to stop the predation of other people; an individual whose autonomy is monopolised by the will of others

Whilst Eric does accept liability more than his parents he still does attempt to relinquish his responsibility. Upon hearing of his mother's involvement he stammers: 'Then - you killed her. She came to you to protect me - and you turned her away - yes, and you killed her - and the child she'd have had too [...] damn you, damn you'. (55). Priestley's repetition of 'you' is telling here

This flurried set of statements represents an attempt to shift the onus onto someone else.

However, the Inspector quickly reminds him that they all had a role to play: 'This girl killed herself - and died a horrible death. But each of you helped to kill her. Remember that' (55).

During the Inspector's interrogation of Eric, one perhaps cannot help but make parallels to Gerald and consider, maybe, whose actions are worse.

Undoubtedly, both are morally repugnant, but whereas Eric does show remorse for what he has done ('I was in a hell of a state about it', 'My God I'm not likely to forget', 'we all helped to kill her') Gerald does not (Everything's all right now Sheila. What about that ring')

Like Sheila, although certainly not as dramatically, Eric has been changed by the events of the night

The End of the Play: Picking up the Pieces

Now that all the characters have been implicated and the Inspector has forced them to confront their guilt he leaves but before doing so gives them one final message.

This is one of the most important speeches and goes to the heart of what the play is about. This is the moral centre of the play and as such worth quoting in full: 'One Eva Smith has gone - but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We don't live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, when they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish' (56).

There are several things that could be said about this striking image:

The passage emphasises how Eva Smith is intended to represent all women and all people in society. This is reinforced by the name itself: in Biblical terms Eva is the first woman and Smith is the most common British surname. We are all Eva Smith and as such we need to help each other.

This is also highlighted by the use of polysyndeton (multiple conjunctions) in 'millions and millions and millions'.

The passage stresses the fact that all people in society should share responsibility for one another: the metaphorical image of us being 'one body' highlights this. If one part of your body is ill or not function as it should then all the others parts suffer. We do not live in a vacuum, but are part of a whole. The health of the whole is dependent on the health of the part.

The final image of lessons being taught in 'fire and blood and anguish' would be especially evocative for an audience who has just fought through two world wars. This reinforces the fact that the natural consequence of a society that does not care for one another (in other words the mentality advocated by Mr Birling) is war and conflict. Thus, the only way to ensure further conflicts do not happen is to create a society where we look after one another. The natural political manifestation of this ideology, for Priestly, is socialism and this is what the play promotes.

After delivering this climatic speech the Inspector leaves and immediately Mr Birling reverts to his old ways: 'There'll be a public scandal!' (57) and also 'I was almost certain for a knighthood in the next Honours List' (57).

The juxtaposition between the Inspector's poignant speech telling of war and death and then Birling's immediate apprehension as to whether or not his reputation will be hurt is a damning portrayal of the different values the two hold. The one is antithetic to the other.

This shows that Mr Birling and also Mrs Birling have not changed during the play: they are selfish, cold, preoccupied with their public image, impervious to the Inspector's warnings. They are symbols of the Edwardian values that Priestley has sought to dismantle.

However, this is not true of Eric and Sheila. Upon hearing his father Eric declares: 'Oh - for God's sake! What does it matter now whether or not you get a knighthood or not?' (57).

Similarly, Sheila says: 'I behaved badly too. I know I did. I'm ashamed of it. But now you're beginning all over again to pretend that nothing much has happened' (57) and then also 'The point is, you don't seem to have learnt anything' (58).

Sheila and Eric start the play with a similar outlook to their parents but soon diverge. They grow during the play, learning the value of community and of caring for others.

Notice also how Shelia begins the play by being subservient to her parents only to then speak her mind and how her speeches begin in a childlike manner only to then become more mature as the play progresses.

There is also the symbol of her engagement ring: she is at first enamoured by it only to then reject it: she is rejecting the materialist values that she initially lived by.

They represent a more socially responsible future. As the Inspector says earlier in the play: 'We often do [make an impression] on the young ones. They're more impressionable'.

Whilst the older generation will not change the young generation will and it is change that is needed to rebuild society into a fairer and more egalitarian place.

Through Eric and Sheila Priestly is modelling and promoting the behaviours that he would like to see in his audience: a rejection of Edwardian values in favour of recognition that one must be responsible for others.

If the play is didactic and seeks to impart a moral lesson then Eric and Sheila have learned this lesson whilst their parents have not.

At this point Gerald returns and suggests that Eva was not a single person, but multiple ones and the Inspector was not real.

The older generation rejoice at this idea whilst the younger generation is in dismay

Just when the Birling family feel they have avoided their comeuppance the phone rings and they are informed that an Inspector will be coming to talk to them as a girl has just died.

This relates to Dunne's theory of time in which the past exists in the present and the one continually shapes the other: history will repeat itself until all of the Birling family have learned their lesson.

Perhaps the ultimate aim of the play is that the audience leave the theatre having learnt their lesson, never to repeat the mistakes of the Birlings, and to walk out into the fresh air morally reinvigorated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Start to Finish: A Detailed Analysis of An Inspector Calls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Previously posted in four parts, the below is a detailed moment by moment analysis of An Inspector Calls written to be both rigorous and accessible to students. It covers the entire play from start to finish. Setting the Scene The play opens with a set of detailed and specific stage directions and Priestley's use of...

# data[].attributes.body
Remember: this video is created for an exam with a different exam board. Your mark scheme is different and does not award for context - focus on the language analysis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is This the Best AIC Video Ever Made? Mr Salles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'An Inspector Calls':  Mr Birling Character Analysis (animated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'An Inspector Calls': Mrs Birling Character Analysis (animated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'An Inspector Calls': Inspector Goole Character Analysis (animated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'An Inspector Calls':  Eric  Character Analysis (animated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'An Inspector Calls':  Gerald Character Analysis (animated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'An Inspector Calls':  Sheila Character Analysis (animated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'An Inspector Calls': Edna Character Analysis (animated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'An Inspector Calls':  Eva Smith  Character Analysis (animated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls: Context And Background

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls – Episode 12: Structure, Meaning & Ambiguity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Episode 12 of our season on 'An Inspector Calls' by J.B. Priestley looks at structure, meaning and ambiguity in the play. Click Revision is a new and forthcoming online learning resource for students of English and English Literature. Content is divided into seasons by text or by topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is the Inspector immensely powerful in changing the Birlings?

Yes: Priestley's stage directions reveal an incredibly influential character; for example, the Inspector should have an 'impression of massiveness'. Other stage directions show his control as he 'takes charge' 'cutting in' and forces all the Birlings, including the impregnable Mrs Birling, to admit their part in Eva's death. Even the lighting reflects his power as, when he enters, it becomes 'brighter and harder', destroying the cosy, intimate atmosphere. In Stephen Daldry's famous production, the Birlings' house is on stilts and collapses at the end of the play after the Inspector's investigation. It is a very clear and dramatic demonstration to the audience of just how much of an impact the Inspector has.

No: The Inspector does not force the Birlings to confess and, in Sheila and Eric's cases, change. He simply acts as a guide, and merely shows the characters their faults and their role in the treatment of Eva. Indeed, when Sheila runs out of the room, crying, the Inspector states: 'I haven't done anything. She is upsetting herself'. Priestley uses elements of Greek theatre in his play and the Inspector acts as the chorus, commenting on the action and the characters. He is not necessarily instrumental himself in affecting change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is the Inspector immensely powerful in changing the Birlings? Yes: Priestley's stage directions reveal an incredibly influential character; for example, the Inspector should have an 'impression of massiveness'. Other stage directions show his control as he 'takes charge' 'cutting in' and forces all the Birlings, including the impregnable Mrs Birling, to admit their part in Eva's death.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit: An Inspector Calls | Teacher Hub | Oak National Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Focusing on the core assessment objectives for GCSE English Literature 9-1, The Quotation Bank takes 25 of the most important quotations from the text and provides detailed material for each quotation, covering interpretations, literary techniques and detailed analysis. Also included is a sample answer, detailed essay plans, revision activities and a comprehensive glossary of relevant literary terminology, all in a clear and practical format to enable effective revision and ultimate exam confidence. Contents: * What examiners are looking for * How The Quotation Bank can help you in your exams * How to use The Quotation Bank * Act One * Act Two * Act Three * Major Themes and Characters * How to revise effectively * Sample essay, potential essay questions and revision activities * Glossary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Quotation Bank: An Inspector Calls GCSE Revision and Study Guide for English Literature 9-1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Focusing on the core assessment objectives for GCSE English Literature 9-1, The Quotation Bank takes 25 of the most important quotations from the text and provides detailed material for each quotation, covering interpretations, literary techniques and detailed analysis. Also included is a sample ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exam Board: AQA Level: GCSE Grade 9-1 Subject: English Literature Suitable for the 2023 exams

Everything you need to revise for your GCSE 9-1 set text in a snap guide

Our An Inspector Calls Snap Revision Text Guide has everything you need to score top marks on your GCSE Grade 9-1 English Literature exam right at your fingertips! Revise An Inspector Calls by J.B. Priestley in a snap with this handy guide.

Refresh your knowledge of the plot, context, characters and themes

Pick up top tips to ace your AQA exam

Plenty of practice questions included in every section

Packed with every quote and extract you need

Examples of how to plan and write your essay responses

QR codes link directly to online videos providing further analysis of the text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Inspector Calls: AQA GCSE 9-1 English Literature Text Guide: Ideal for the 2024 and 2025 exams (Collins GCSE Grade 9-1 SNAP Revision)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy An Inspector Calls: AQA GCSE 9-1 English Literature Text Guide: Ideal for the 2024 and 2025 exams (Collins GCSE Grade 9-1 SNAP Revision) by Collins GCSE (ISBN: 9780008551506) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.