The Inspector

How is the inspector’s demeanour?

● He arrives at a critical time – to interrupt Mr Birling and his selfish views: ‘a man has to mind his own business and
look after himself and his own – and – We hear the sharp ring of a front doorbell.’ The Inspector’s role is to show that
this is not the case.
● He is described in the stage directions as giving ‘an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness’. He takes
charge immediately and remains in control throughout. He remains solid as each of them breaks down and nothing
distracts him from his purpose.
● He is clearly there to challenge and investigate. He has a habit of ‘looking hard’ at the person he is interrogating
before starting to speak. This unnerves the characters.
● He directs the investigation carefully, dealing with ‘one line of enquiry at a time’. Therefore, he is controlling the
structure of the play.
● He is a teacher – to teach each character (and the audience) of the importance of social responsibility.
● He uses aggressive, shocking language to make the characters feel guilty for the part they played in Eva Smith’s death:
‘she died in misery and agony’
● He arrives at a critical time – to interrupt Mr Birling and his selfish views: ‘a man has to mind his own business and
look after himself and his own – and – We hear the sharp ring of a front doorbell.’ The Inspector’s role is to show that
this is not the case.
● He is described in the stage directions as giving ‘an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness’. He takes
charge immediately and remains in control throughout. He remains solid as each of them breaks down and nothing
distracts him from his purpose.
● He is clearly there to challenge and investigate. He has a habit of ‘looking hard’ at the person he is interrogating
before starting to speak. This unnerves the characters.
● He directs the investigation carefully, dealing with ‘one line of enquiry at a time’. Therefore, he is controlling the
structure of the play.
● He is a teacher – to teach each character (and the audience) of the importance of social responsibility.
● He uses aggressive, shocking emotive language to make the characters feel guilty for the part they played in Eva
Smith’s death: ‘she died in misery and agony’
Model A* answer on how Priestley uses the inspector to get the message of social responsibility

How does Priestley use the Inspector to voice his message on Social Responsibility?

Indeed, it may be said that An Inspector Calls is a play more centred on themes and ideas than one driven by plot. Hence, Priestley uses a number of devices
throughout the text to convey his ideas about social responsibility - juxtaposition being perhaps one of the more significant strategies employed by Priestley to
highlight his ideas about the community and social responsibility. Thus, when Mr Birling – a stereotypical construct of Aristocratic English society – presents his
monologue about the „unsinkable Titanic‟ and the „scaremongers making a fuss about nothing‟, the audience are immediately made aware of his ignorance
and self-inflated, pompous attitude, thus casting doubt over his capitalist ideas about „mind[ing] his own business‟. This, then, is in direct contrast to the
Inspector‟s message on socialism, further highlighted by the clever timing of the doorbell which is designed not only to unnerve the audience and the
characters, but to create a conflict between Mr Birling and the Inspector.

This conflict between the Inspector and Arthur Birling serves as a powerful dichotomy of ideas – between capitalism and socialism – and is thus amply
exploited by Priestley to highlight both the way things were in British society during the Pre-World War 1 era, and the immense need for change. This
juxtaposition and power play, thus, add strength to the ideas presented by Priestley. The use of the Inspector as author surrogate gives further credence to the
socialist ideal and is enforced through Priestley‟s clever crafting of characters; Birling who is set up as a sanctimonious, arrogant, yet ignorant fool is
juxtaposed by the Inspector – a modest, yet informed individual who represents the common people; Mrs Birling who is clearly disliked by Priestley himself, is
portrayed as an egotistical, uncaring and self-important person whose manner is repugnant not only to Priestley, but also to the audience whose views of her
affects, in turn, their views on the selfish policies which she represents.
Model A* answer on how Priestley uses the inspector to get the message of social responsibility

The contrast between the characters of Mr and Mrs Birling to that of Sheila and Eric also help to highlight the gradual change affecting pre-World War 1 society
which led to a demand for better working conditions for the working classes, and a smudging of those lines which, until then, so uncompromisingly defined
the social classes. Accordingly, the younger generation – represented by the characters of Eric and Sheila – portray societal shifts towards greater equality and,
subsequently, become author surrogates to some extent, joining forces with the Inspector to give further weight to Priestley‟s socialist ideal. The conflict
between the Inspector and Mr Birling are sustained not only by the use of dramatic irony to create a negative impression of Birling and a lack credibility which
impacts on the audience‟ perception of his values, but through his shaping of the Inspector‟s character who, despite his muted and inferior appearance, is
revealed to be the most authoritative voice in the play; the almost transcendent, god-like voice given to the Inspector by Priestley, which carries forward this
vital message about society, individuals and the need for human understanding and compassion, though ignored by the two older members of the family,
finds root in the hearts of the younger members– the generation who will, in time, be responsible for shaping a new society, and thus, those who matter most.

This authority stems not only from his role of Inspector, but through his persistent use of Socratic questioning which is merciless and unforgiving towards the
other characters despite their social superiority. Moreover, Priestley‟s perpetual use of the word „authority‟ to describe the Inspector‟s manner, tone and
register, along with his frequent referral to the Inspector‟s „cutting in‟ of other‟s speech, immediately gives him a power denied to the other characters,
consequently, allowing Priestley to voice his ideas more vociferously through the Inspector‟s mouth. This interruption of speech, accompanied by the
interruption of Birling‟s speech by the doorbell, further increases the power given to the Inspector. This very blatant and biased shaping of character and plot
highlights once again the central focus of the play as one of theme rather than narrative.
Stage Directions:
● 'The Inspector need not be a big man but he creates at once an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness.' 'cutting
through, massively'
● 'We hear the sharp ring of the bell. Birling stops to listen.'
● 'dressed in a plain, darkish suit of the period'
● 'has a disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person'
● 'The lighting should be pink and intimate until the Inspector arrives, and then it should be brighter and harder.'
 ● 'The Inspector need not be a big man but he creates at once an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness.' 'cutting
through, massively'

The Inspector assumes control, which is a disturbing shift for Birling and he immediately tries to regain it. The Inspector interrupts Birling ‘cutting through,
massively’. The omniscient Inspector is used by Priestley to further convey his views on collective / social responsibility. The Inspector is used very effectively
to highlight the corruption and the selfish attitudes of the Edwardian society. Compare this description to Mr Birling at the beginning. Not physically large
but has authority and presence. The adjectives, massiveness and “solidity” almost feels he is that solid, impenetrable object which will metaphorically
sink this family. Notice again, he like Mr Birling is also in his fifties. We, the audience, are being invited to compare these men. The three adjectives are
significant as they are used to describe the presence of the inspector and demonstrate his disruption to the natural hierarchy of the house. Each adjective, in a
sense elevates the inspector above Mr Birling. Structure of the language is important, the words appear long visually and also verbally, heightening the idea that
the Inspector is a huge power which with only words will bring down a family.

‘Cutting through massively’

The directions describe the way the Inspector talks to members of the family and is repeated constantly throughout the play to show his power. The
inspector is like the sharp sword of justice, cutting through the lies of the family. Whenever Priestley describes the Inspector, he uses the semantic
field of size: showing the sheer importance of this man, and his power.
 ● 'We hear the sharp ring of the bell. Birling stops to listen.'

The inspector arrives just after Birling has made his capitalist speech and the “sharp ring of the bell” interrupts his speech on “social responsibility, it is almost
as if the inspector was summoned by the words of avarice uttered out of Birling’s mouth. The ring of the bell is “sharp” meaning that it is almost cutting
through Birling’s words.

● 'dressed in a plain, darkish suit of the period'

The adjective “darkish” connotes an imagery of something ominous and sinister. The fact that the Inspector is dressed in a “darkish suit of the period” could
purport that the Inspector is going to inaugurate some gloom and misery into the Birling family and the post-war audience in the reality of some ‘darker’
aspects of the Edwardian society, such as the growing division of the proletarians and bourgeois, and the deep-rooted patriarchal society where rich
Edwardian men, in particular, use and abuse women due to their authority and status. The otherwise ignorant Birling family are seeing the world through
‘rose-tinted glasses’ and believe “everything is alright”. They are unaware of the vast turmoil that many working class individuals faced due to their harrowing
actions. Priestley's motive here was to dress the Inspector plainly was to divert any attention on his outward appearance and to have the audience focus on on
the intended basis of the Inspector, his dialect and the messages, such as social responsibility that Priestly wanted the audience to procure. Or Perhaps this
“plain...suit” could represent the Inspector’s outward simplicity and purity that Priestly wanted the Inspector to emit. By having him dressed so simply, it gives
him a neutral stance - the audience are unable to identify him as an affluent or working class individual.
 ● 'has a disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person'

His sense of mystery is quite ominous and means the audience and the characters are scared of him. This could show that he is intimidating and that
he is powerful before speaking as he has taken time to strategically analyse and judge the person and what he is going to say beforehand. The stare
suggests that he is able to read a person by looking at them and that he can discern what they are thinking; a mind reader.

● 'The lighting should be pink and intimate until the Inspector arrives, and then it should be brighter and harder.'

The lighting presents the changing mood of the play - the pink light suggests that the family see life through rose tinted glasses, they do not see the
reality of the impending war, the suffering of the working classes, etc. The harsher lighting suggests the light of truth which the inspector brings with
him. The light used in an interrogation. It also reveals the truth about the family; they begin to see each other in a different light. This particular usage
of lighting is called a dramatic device, as it helps tension rise within the play. everything is in a good ambiance until the arrival of the inspector. After
the inspector arrives the lighting becomes harder and brighter changing the mood of the play
“One person and one line of inquiry at a time”
The effect on the reader of the Inspectors systematic working is one of curiosity, it is not till the closure of the play that we realise that this is due to the inspector
enforcing the idea that he is a real policeman and his ideas are not ‘a whole lot of moonshine’. This allows the audience to reflect on the attributes they share
similar with each individual character in question. The Inspector uses commanding language as he ‘massively takes charge’ to show that he has the floor and will
be maintain the authority. He uses instructive language, to, for a change, deny them something. Shelia says the Inspector is giving the family ‘rope so we’ll hang
ourselves’, and this is an important part in the overall structure of the play.

The Inspector uses Freytag's dramatic arc to evaluate ‘one person’ at any time and through this allows the person to solely reflect on their actions alone. The
inspectors method provides the overall dynamic of the play.The idea of Freytag’s dramatic arc ties in with the idea that each of the characters questioned by the
Inspector represent or uphold characteristics of the seven deadly sins. Birling perhaps represents greed, Mrs Birling pride, Sheila envy and anger, both Gerald
Croft and Eric represent lust, however Eric also has traits of greed and laziness. The inspector is attempting to rid each character of their deadly sin, and therefore
the theme of the play revolves around sin and responsibilities. Priestley's intended purpose for this is to use the inspector to narrate and take the audience
through a journey of how the family’s harrow actions led to Eva’s suicide.
 ● 'A chain of events'

In this fascinating excerpt, the Inspector outlines the nature of the moral crime the Birlings and Gerald have committed against Eva. Each of them is
responsible in part for her death, and together they are entirely responsible (collective responsibility). This construction is itself a metaphor for
Priestley's insistence that we are all bound up together and responsible communally for everyone's survival.
‘...if men will not learn that lesson, when they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.’
‘there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths’

The structure of the passage is important, it is one of the Inspectors longest periods of dialogue and could be related to a sermon. These are his final words and
signify that he will have a resounding impact. The language used by the inspector is riddled with collective pronouns such as ‘we’, ‘us’ and ‘our’ showing that
through his brusque language the Inspector is attempting to inflict moral responsibilities and also offers a final warning for those who choose not to accept their
responsibility in the part of Eva’s death.

The Inspector's final lines, from a longer speech he makes shortly before his exit, are a blistering delivery of Priestley's socialist message. Moreover,
his promise of "fire and blood and anguish" also looks forward to the First and Second World Wars, a resonance, which, to Priestley's 1946 audience,
must have been quite chilling. This can be read in two ways - a foreshadowing of the world wars in which men were taught in fire, blood and anguish
and a pessimistic prediction of world war 3 OR a religious metaphor that men will be condemned to a hell on earth if they cannot live together.
This image would have clearly had a great impact on the first audiences who would have seen the horrors of world war 1 and 2 first hand. The
speech is composed of complex sentences, which are referential (utterances that provide information) and short sentences that are expressive
(utterances that express the speaker’s feelings). Priestley makes great use of these short sentence structures in order to deliver his opinions as
facts. This intended effect is to make both the characters and the audience inspect their own consciences. Furthermore, the use of short sentences
symbolises the limit of society, which could still be developed by everyone accepting each other. To convey to the Birlings how widespread their
actions are, the Inspector uses the extended metaphor of ‘millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths’ to represent the number of workingclass men and
women who were exploited on a daily basis by the greed of capitalism. The Inspector’s use of the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ contrast with the language
of Mr and Mrs Birling who normally use ‘I’ as their primary concern is themselves. The use of ‘we’ further emphasises Priestley’s ideas of collective
responsibility and how society should be formed.

The Inspector sees society as more important than individual interests, unlike Mr Birling who made it apparent at the beginning of the play that he believes ‘a
man has to make his own way’. The views the Inspectors maintains are like those of Priestley who was a socialist, showing that priestly uses the Inspector as a
mouthpiece so perhaps voice his views on the social hierarchy of England,
 We are members of one body, We are responsible for each other.
This directly contrast with what Mr Birling says at the beginning ie looking after your own interests. The metaphor of the
body is very powerful. A body requires the limbs to work together to move forward; if we do not all work together we will be
unable to function as a cohesive society.

“Good night.”

The end of the Inspectors speech is bathetic, to lay emphasis on the words he uttered prior to this. The phrase goodnight,
sounds so final as if the Inspector has finished his intended purpose.
Why has Priestly left the Inspector as a mysterious figure?

The Inspector’s name leads us to question whether he actually exists. The word ‘Goole’ suggests his mysterious quality, being a pun on the word ‘ghoul’. Is he
merely a ghost, someone whose very existence has come about as a result of Eva Smith’s death? Through the Inspector’s final dramatic speech, Priestley
skillfully warns the audience of the potential social disasters of failing to support or help those in need in society. Inspector Goole serves several functions in
the play. He acts as the storyteller, linking all the separate incidents together into one, coherent story. Priestley has him supply dates for events, or fill in
background about the girl. He also behaves rather like a priest, someone to whom characters confess their sins, helping them to see the extent of their
involvement in the downfall of Eva Smith, and encouraging them to acknowledge their guilt and repent. While the Inspector himself does not hand out
forgiveness or punishment, characters are made to recognise that they must find the courage to judge themselves, because only then will they have learnt
anything and be able to change themselves. Certainly it seems that Priestley did not want to promote a single interpretation of who the Inspector ‘really’ is.
The character’s dramatic power lies in this. To have revealed his identity as a hoaxer or as some kind of ‘spirit’ would have spoilt the unresolved tension that is
so effective at the end of the play

The discovery that the Inspector was in fact an ‘elaborate scare’ permits the audience to explore different
possibilities of who the inspector might represent:
Is he a ghost? Goole reminds us of 'ghoul' as they are homophones.
Is he the voice of Priestley?
Is he the voice of God? “We are members of one body” has religious connotation.
Is he the voice of all our consciences?
No matter who the Inspector was, inevitably he brought about the change he desired and asks the characters and
audience to reflect and change.