Priestley's methods and message

Hi all,

One last blog before the Lit Unit 1 exam.

Well done to those of you who have been firing practice exam questions at me over the last week or so. Some of you can rest assured that you are going to do very well in this exam. It's not too late to do some serious, high impact revision - and trying exam questions is as high impact as it gets. You don't want to experience writing a 45 minute An Inspector Calls essay for the first time in your final exam, do you? That'd be like arriving at your driving text without first having any experience of driving a car. That's a slightly rubbish simile, but you get the idea.

One last thing I wanted to re-inforce is the assessment objectives you have to hit in Section A (An Inspector Calls). Unlike the part b OMAM question, you don't have to write about context (though it'd be hard not to mention it). You are only being assessed on:

AO1: respond to texts critically and imaginatively; select and evaluate relevant textual detail to illustrate and support interpretations

and 

AO2: explain how language, structure and form contribute to writers’ presentation of ideas, themes and settings

So, a big part of what you need to do in this question is to write about Priestley's methods and how they get across his ideas.

Here's a few reminders:

• It's a well-made play. That means it's set in real time, in a realistic setting, a tightly focused storyline. The effect is that it feels like you are watching real life unfold in real time. That is, until Priestley breaks the conventions of the well-made play at the end. But more of that later.
• The initial stage directions are worth exploring. It is through these that Priestley sets up our initial impressions of the Birlings. For instance, the phrase 'comfortable, but not cosy and homelike' is the first suggestion we get that we are seeing an awkward, unnatural facade of perfect family life. The reference to the lighting, which goes from 'pink and intimate' to harsh and bright symbolises the light of truth. There will be nowhere for the Birlings to hide.
• Priestley's stage directions are revealing once the dialogue kicks in too. Sheila, for instance, is always 'half-serious, half-playful' or showing 'mock aggressiveness' in the opening stages. This shows that she's a little giddy and immature; she's never had to grow up as she's lived a sheltered, privileged life so far.
• Dramatic irony is used heavily, especially to undermine Mr Birling. The effect is easily achieved as the play is set in 1912, but the audience are watching in 1946 or after. So the Titanic reference and war references have a great impact in revealing Birling's complacency. This makes it quick and easy to position his audience against Mr and Mrs Birling from the early stages of the play.
• Characterisation: Priestley sets up his characters to show contrasts. The younger Birlings are dynamic characters who experience change. They're believable humans with faults and redeeming features. Eric and Sheila are like us in many ways - too concerned with our own problems to see the big picture, but basically good. They just need a wake-up call, which is what Priestley is trying to give us. Sheila in particular acts as our representative on the stage. She reacts with horror as we should, and she realises what's really going on as we do. Her words make sure that we keep up (eg. when she tells Mrs B to stop blaming the father of the child for everything.)
• The older Birlings are static characters. They're less believable as human beings; in fact, they seem to be used by Priestley to encapsulate ideas (Mr B = Capitalism; Mrs B = inherited wealth + status). They're almost caricatures. Priestley uses dramatic irony to undermine them, and he makes sure we dislike them from the start.
• The two generations create a dichotomy between the selfish attitudes of Edwardian Britain and the social conscience of the post-war generation. Capitalism vs socialism. In this way, Priestley's play contains hope for the future - beyond the 'fire and blood and anguish'.
• The Inspector is an unusual character. He is moralistic and seems to be more focused on teaching the Birlings a lesson than uncovering the truth about Eva Smith. For instance, he says they can 'divide the responsibility between them after' he's gone. He represents socialism in the play. Perhaps Priestley uses him as his own mouthpiece - it certainly seems that way at the end - allowing him to go back in time to point the finger of blame at those he saw as being responsible for everything that went wrong.
• The play makes use of dramatic, cliffhanger endings at the end of each act. These pauses give the audience time to reflect on their own actions. This is also what happens at the end - Priestley delivers his final message, then leaves everything open for us to interpret for ourselves. It's not really about Eva at all, or the Birlings; it's about the 'millions and millions' of Evas, and us.
• Priestley builds lots of tension. From whether Birling knows about port or not, to the Croft's absence, to Eric's behaviour and to the talk of what happened last summer - there's clearly more to these relationships than initially meets the eye. The general feeling is that appearances and reality are very different things. This is highlighted by the Alderman Meggarty conversation later. 
• The sounds of doors knocking and slamming, as well as ringing telephones also help to create tension. Each time, they mark a change in direction or emphasis. When Eric goes out, we know he is involved too. When the phone rings at the end, we only hear half a conversation, but it is clear from Birling's face that something is wrong. This final phone call is a great way of stalling the narrative and maximising the tension.
• The Inspector's final lines have the feel of a rhetorical speech. It has repetition, use of 'we', and the metaphor of 'fire and blood and anguish'. Is he referring to war, or hell? Priestley is being intentionally ambiguous because he wants us to think. This speech feels like it is directed at us.
• Afterwards, Priestley's play comes full circle. The older Birlings return to their old, self-satisfied and complacent ways. They drink and feel confident about the future. Then... an Inspector calls! This circular structure (like in OMAM), leaves us wondering and forces us to ponder our own behaviour. We have to accept that the message is not about the Birlings - Priestley wants us to write our own ending. The circular structure suggests that if we don't change our ways, we're doomed to make the same mistakes as the Birlings.
• The twist at the end is made all the more effective because of Priestley's use of the conventions of the well-made play. We expect a neat ending, but we don't get it. We expect realism, but we are left pondering whether Goole really was a ghoul.

Before I sign off, I just wanted to throw a few docs your way. First up is a model answer about the initial impressions of Mr B that I wrote years ago:




And this is a study guide packed with useful information and things to think about:



The last one is an Of Mice and Men related task. Comment on examples of light/dark imagery and symbolism:



Okay, I think I'm out of Unit 1 chat. But I'll be back soon to re-focus you on Lit 2: Poetry.


Good luck (it's not about luck)!



Mr M