An Inspector Calls

Sheila: (half serious, half playful) Yes - except for all last summer, when you never came near me.

Mr. Salles would analyze the "half serious, half playful" tone as indicative of gender dynamics and the precarious position of women in Edwardian society. Sheila expresses suspicion about Gerald’s absence but does so in a socially acceptable manner, avoiding direct confrontation. This highlights her dependence on securing marriage within a patriarchal system.

The quote introduces the theme of hidden truths and potential infidelity, foreshadowing Gerald’s affair with Eva Smith/Daisy Renton. Mr. Salles would argue that Priestley uses this dialogue to subtly undermine the facade of happiness and to highlight feminist concerns about power imbalances in relationships.

Mrs Birling: When you're married you'll realise that men with 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.

Mr. Salles would highlight this as a clear articulation of patriarchal expectations and the societal conditioning of women to accept emotional neglect for the sake of their husbands' careers. Mrs. Birling presents this as a natural aspect of marriage. The phrase "just as I had" hints at emotional repression and compromises in her own marriage.

This reveals how patriarchal norms lead to inequality within families. Mr. Salles would argue that Priestley uses Mrs. Birling's statement to critique these structures, emphasizing how women are expected to conform to unequal power dynamics, reinforcing Priestley’s feminist critique.

"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." :

Mr. Salles would identify this as a direct representation of the theme of capitalism and its inherent drive for profit maximization, even at the expense of fair competition and the well-being of workers and consumers. Birling's vision prioritizes financial gain over ethical business practices. This quote also highlights how social class and business interests are deeply intertwined in the Edwardian context. The marriage is seen by Birling as a chance to form a powerful business alliance, reducing his daughter's happiness to an economic strategy.

Mr. Salles would argue that Priestley uses Birling's statement to critique capitalism and expose the materialistic values of the ruling class.

that a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own

Mr. Salles would emphasize this as a crucial moment that encapsulates the theme of individual versus social responsibility. Birling's dismissive attitude towards "community" represents a selfish, individualistic capitalist ideology that Priestley directly opposes. The abrupt interruption of the doorbell immediately after Birling's assertion acts as a direct challenge to this worldview. It can also be seen as a supernatural intervention, suggesting that Birling's selfish views have summoned a force for social justice.

Mr. Salles would argue that Priestley strategically places this moment to reinforce his central purpose: to advocate for social responsibility and critique the consequences of unchecked capitalism.

Mr Birling: If you don't come down sharply on some of these people, they'd soon be asking for the earth.

Inspector: They might. But after all it's better to ask for the earth than to take it.

Mr. Salles would analyze Birling's statement as a reflection of capitalist ideology and his belief that workers should accept poor conditions. Birling’s dismissal of better wages as excessive highlights his disregard for workers’ rights. The Inspector counters this by asserting that workers have the right to improve their lives, challenging Birling’s capitalist mindset.

Mr. Salles would argue that Priestley uses this exchange to contrast capitalist self-interest with socialist ideals of justice and equality, urging the audience to reconsider the morality of unchecked capitalism and to embrace a more equitable society based on social responsibility.

Gerald: You couldn't have done anything else.

Mr. Salles would interpret Gerald's comment as indicative of the prevailing social attitudes and class biases of the upper class. This comment reveals that Gerald believes dismissing Eva Smith was a normal and acceptable action within their social hierarchy, highlighting a lack of social responsibility and empathy for those in lower social strata.

Mr. Salles would suggest that Priestley uses this statement to expose the comfortable indifference and moral blindness of the upper class toward the struggles of the working class. This furthers Priestley’s purpose of prompting his audience to critically examine these ingrained societal attitudes and recognize their damaging effects.

Why shouldn't they try for higher wages? We try for the highest possible prices… You said yourself she was a good worker.

Mr. Salles would analyze Eric's questioning as the first significant dissent within the Birling family towards his father's capitalist principles. This introduces the theme of an emerging social conscience in the younger generation. Eric’s comparison between the Birlings' pursuit of profit and workers' right to better wages highlights the inequality and exploitative nature of unchecked capitalism. His reference to Eva as a "good worker" emphasizes her worth, undermining the justification for her dismissal.

Mr. Salles would argue that Priestley uses Eric’s words to introduce a socialist perspective, suggesting growing awareness of working-class injustices within the privileged class.

Sheila: But these girls aren't cheap labour - they're people.

Mr. Salles would identify this as a pivotal moment where Sheila rejects the dehumanizing capitalist view of the working class. This establishes the theme of humanity versus objectification, highlighting the intrinsic worth of every individual, regardless of social standing. Sheila’s statement challenges her father’s focus on "labour costs" and underscores the theme of social responsibility, recognizing the human impact of economic decisions.

Mr. Salles would argue that Priestley uses Sheila’s line to make the audience confront the human consequences of capitalist exploitation and empathize with the working class, promoting a more compassionate society.

He produces the photograph. She looks at it closely, recognizes it with a little cry, gives a half-stifled sob, and then runs out.

Sheila: (miserably) So I'm really responsible?

Mr. Salles would analyze Sheila's reaction to the photograph as an emotional recognition of her role in Eva Smith’s tragedy, introducing the theme of guilt and the impact of personal actions. Her question, "So I'm really responsible?", marks the beginning of her acceptance of social responsibility, contrasting with her parents' denial.

Mr. Salles would argue that Priestley uses this moment to show the human cost of selfish actions and to highlight the potential for change in the younger generation. This supports Priestley’s purpose of encouraging the audience to confront their own responsibility for social injustice.

"for god's sake - don't say anything to the Inspector." :

Mr. Salles would interpret Gerald's urgent plea to Sheila as an attempt at self-preservation and a desire to avoid social and personal scandal. This highlights the theme of prioritizing reputation and self-interest over truth and genuine remorse. Gerald’s response reveals his superficial understanding of the Inspector's purpose, viewing the inquiry as a threat to their social standing rather than a chance for moral reckoning.

Mr. Salles would argue that Priestley uses this moment to expose the hypocrisy and shallowness of the upper class, whose primary concern is maintaining their privileged position rather than confronting their wrongdoings. This aligns with Priestley's critique of the moral failings of the ruling class.

Gerald: You've been through it - and now you want to see somebody else put through it.

Sheila: If you'd really loved me, you couldn't have said that.

Gerald's accusation reflects a misunderstanding of Sheila's motives. While he sees her desire for truth as vindictive, Sheila’s continued engagement with the Inspector stems from a newfound sense of social responsibility and a desire for collective accountability. Her poignant reply, "If you'd really loved me, you couldn't have said that," reveals her evolving values and the superficiality of traditional romantic gestures in comparison to deeper moral responsibility.

Priestley uses this exchange to contrast the superficiality of upper-class relationships with the more meaningful connections Sheila is beginning to recognize, reflecting his advocacy for a more ethical and socially conscious way of relating.

It happened that a friend of mine, Charlie Brunswick, had gone off to Canada for six months and I had let me have the key to a nice little set of rooms.

Gerald's attempt to offer a casual explanation for his possession of the rooms minimizes the deliberate and secretive nature of his affair with Daisy Renton. This highlights the theme of deception and the importance of social appearances within the upper class. The seemingly harmless detail of the "nice little set of rooms" conceals private matters, suggesting entitlement and freedom not afforded to those in lower social positions.

Priestley uses this to expose the privilege with which the upper class can conceal their actions, aligning with his broader critique of social inequality and the hypocrisy of the privileged.

Sheila: You were the wonderful fairy prince. You must have adored it, Gerald.

Gerald: All right - I did for a time. Nearly any man would have done.

Sheila's sarcastic description of Gerald highlights her cutting recognition of his enjoyment in a position of power and control within his relationship with Daisy Renton, where he likely felt admired. This emphasizes the theme of vanity and the abuse of power dynamics in relationships. Gerald's justification, "Nearly any man would have done," reflects the patriarchal norms of the time, where male dominance and the exploitation of vulnerable women were often rationalized.

Priestley uses this exchange to critique the superficial and exploitative nature of relationships in a patriarchal society, exposing Gerald’s limited understanding of genuine equality and respect in relationships.

she'd lived very economically on what I'd allowed her - and didn't want to take any more money from me, but I insisted on a parting gift of enough money - though it wasn't so very much.

Gerald's attempt to present himself as a benevolent benefactor to Daisy Renton, downplaying his financial support ("it wasn't so very much"), emphasizes the theme of financial control and dominance in their relationship. The phrase "what I'd allowed her" subtly reveals Gerald’s power and control over Daisy’s financial independence, highlighting the power imbalance and economic vulnerability of the working class.

Priestley uses Gerald’s words to expose the transactional nature of upper-class interactions with the working class, critiquing how financial aid can often fail to address deeper inequalities. This reinforces Priestley's broader critique of capitalism.

She was giving herself ridiculous airs. She was claiming elaborate fine feelings and scruples that were simply absurd in a girl in her position

Mrs. Birling’s description of Eva Smith reflects her entrenched social prejudice, emphasizing the theme of class divisions. Her judgment based on Eva's lower status shows a lack of empathy, revealing social class as a barrier to understanding. The phrases "ridiculous airs" and "absurd in a girl in her position" dehumanize the working class.

Priestley uses Mrs. Birling’s language to critique the damaging effects of class prejudice, highlighting the upper class’s failure to recognize the humanity of the poor. This serves to promote Priestley’s message for a more egalitarian and compassionate society.

“As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money”

This phrase reveals Mrs. Birling's ingrained social prejudice and her tendency to stereotype the working class, highlighting her inability to see individuals beyond their social status. It reinforces the theme of social class as a rigid and divisive force, reflecting the upper class's belief that lower-class individuals are inherently different and inferior.

Priestley uses this recurring phrase to expose the dehumanizing nature of class prejudice, challenging the audience to confront and reject such discriminatory attitudes. This aligns with Priestley’s message of promoting social progress and encouraging a recognition of the worth of all individuals, regardless of class.

Mrs Birling: I'll tell you what I told him. Go and look for the father of the child. It's his responsibility. He should be made an example of. If the girl's death is due to anybody, then it's due to him.

This quote underscores the theme of moral responsibility and hypocrisy within the upper class. Mrs. Birling’s refusal to accept any personal accountability, instead placing the blame on the unknown father, highlights her denial of responsibility and lack of empathy. Her demand for punishment reveals the hypocrisy of applying harsh moral standards to others while ignoring her own complicity.

Priestley uses Mrs. Birling’s statements to expose the moral blindness of the upper class, critiquing their tendency to judge others without recognizing their own role in social injustice. This reinforces Priestley’s socialist message, emphasizing the importance of shared responsibility for one another.

well, I was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty - and I threatened to make a row

This quote reveals the theme of toxic masculinity and the rationalization of harmful behaviour, with Eric attributing his forceful actions towards Eva Smith to intoxication, reflecting a common excuse for aggression among men. It highlights the abuse of power due to Eric’s social and economic standing, as he exploits his position of privilege.

Priestley uses Eric’s words to expose the damaging consequences of patriarchal attitudes and male entitlement, where aggression and coercion are normalized. This emphasizes the exploitation and vulnerability of women in a patriarchal society, critiquing the societal structures that enable such behaviour.

Eric: I suppose - about fifty pounds all told.

Inspector: You mean - you stole the money?

Eric: Not really.

This exchange highlights the theme of theft and differing perceptions of responsibility, as Eric's reluctance to call his actions "stealing" reveals a potential lack of understanding of the severity of his actions. The quote also touches upon the theme of class privilege, as Eric may feel entitled to take money from his father's business without fully acknowledging it as a crime.

Priestley uses this dialogue to expose the moral ambiguity and potential hypocrisy within the capitalist class, where actions that harm others might be rationalized or downplayed by those in positions of power.

Then - you killed her. She came to you to protect me

This statement by Eva Smith emphasizes the theme of maternal responsibility and the devastating consequences of its absence, directly accusing Mrs. Birling of causing Eva's death through her refusal to help. It also underscores the theme of familial relationships and the potential for betrayal and lack of support within them, as Eva sought help to protect her son from the consequences of Eric's actions.

Priestley uses Eric's outburst to highlight the destructive power of social prejudice and the refusal to accept responsibility, showing how Mrs. Birling's class-based judgment had fatal consequences. This furthers Priestley's socialist message about the damaging effects of patriarchy and capitalism.

Inspector: But just remember this. 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, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish. Good night.

This powerful speech directly addresses the central theme of social responsibility, emphasizing the interconnectedness of society and the moral obligation to care for one another, particularly the working classes represented by "Eva Smiths and John Smiths." The final warning introduces the theme of impending social and global consequences if the lesson of responsibility is not learned, foreshadowing the devastation of war.

Priestley uses the Inspector as a proxy to deliver a moral ultimatum, urging the audience to embrace collective responsibility to avoid future "fire and blood and anguish". This speech encapsulates Priestley's socialist and anti-war stance.

Gerald: In that case - as I'm rather more - upset - by this business than I probably appear to be - and - well, I rather'd be alone for a while - I'd be glad if you'd let me go.

This quote highlights the theme of deception and the manipulation of social appearances, as Gerald claims to be more upset than he seems, possibly to avoid further scrutiny. It also touches on self-preservation, as Gerald's desire to be alone suggests an attempt to process the events and consider their implications for his own reputation and guilt.

Priestley uses Gerald's words to reveal the superficiality beneath the polite facade of the upper class, showing his concern for his own feelings and social standing even amid tragedy. This prompts us to question Birling's authority, as he represents capitalism.

Gerald: Yes. I met a police sergeant I know down the road…Well, you were right. There isn't any such Inspector. We've been had.

This reveals the theme of social class and its perceived immunity from real consequences, as Gerald's social connections allow him to access information that undermines the Inspector's authority, potentially restoring the status quo. The quote also highlights deception and the superficiality of appearances, as the Birlings and Gerald are quick to believe they have been deceived by a "hoax" and can revert to their previous attitudes.

Priestley critiques the arrogance and self-deception of the capitalist class, showing their eagerness to dismiss any challenge to their authority and their limited capacity for genuine learning or change. This calls into question Birling's authority, as he represents capitalism.

Sheila: No, because I remember what he said, how he looked, and what he made me feel. Fire and blood and anguish. And it frightens me the way you talk and I can't listen to any more of it.

Eric: And I agree with Sheila. It frightens me too

This emphasizes the theme of generational conflict and the younger generation’s capacity to learn and be affected by the Inspector’s message of social responsibility. The quote highlights the lasting impact of moral awareness, contrasting Sheila and Eric’s emotional and intellectual growth with their parents’ denial.

Priestley uses this moment to instill hope, suggesting the younger generation, having lived through the fire and blood of the World Wars, might be more open to a socialist message of collective responsibility and social change, contrasting with their parents’ materialistic and individualistic mindset.

Gerald: Everything's all right now, Sheila. (Holds up the ring.) What about this ring?

Sheila: No, not yet. It's too soon. I must think.

This quote highlights the theme of relationships and the incomplete nature of personal change, as Gerald hopes to resolve moral issues by returning to the previous status quo.

Sheila’s rejection of the ring symbolizes her shift in priorities and realization that superficial symbols of commitment are meaningless without genuine moral growth.

Priestley uses this ambiguous ending to challenge whether superficial resolutions can truly address deeper issues. The audience is left to reflect on whether Sheila and Gerald’s relationship can recover without a fundamental shift in their understanding of social responsibility.

Birling: (pointing to Eric and Sheila) Now look at the pair of them - the famous younger generation who know it all. And they can't even take a joke

This highlights the theme of the irreconcilable generational divide and the older generation’s dismissal of the younger generation’s newfound social conscience. Birling trivializes their moral awakening, underscoring his lack of understanding and empathy.

It also reinforces the theme of the privileged's inability to recognize the gravity of their actions, as Birling treats serious events as a "joke."

Priestley uses Birling’s dismissive words to satirize the stubborn resistance of the older, capitalist generation to any form of social responsibility or critique of their values, contrasting them with the younger generation, more open to learning from the Inspector’s message.

Birling: That was the police. A girl has just died - on her way to the Infirmary - after swallowing some disinfectant. And a police inspector is on his way here - to ask some - questions.

The second death mirrors the first, emphasizing the failure to learn from past mistakes and highlighting the cyclical nature of social injustice.
The arrival of a real police inspector reinforces the idea that the Birlings' actions will face inescapable consequences, even if they dismiss the Inspector's message.
This final moment warns the audience that failure to embrace social responsibility leads to repetition of mistakes, symbolized by "fire and blood and anguish," a metaphor for the Second World War.
Priestley critiques society’s failure to learn from past mistakes, urging the need for moral accountability and social reform.