‘I’d like some information, if you don’t mind, Mr. Birling. Two hours ago, a young woman died in the infirmary…’ Act one, page 11.
This is where the attitude of Mr. Birling and the Birlings change, as they can see that the inspector is being serious.
Goole doesn’t give any hints that he isn’t a real police inspector until later in the play. He seems like a real inspector in the entire first act.
Goole’s actions are consistent of those of a real police inspector in many ways, one of which by him refusing a drink as they aren’t allowed to drink on duty.
Mr. Birling: Have a glass of port – or a little whisky?
Inspector: No thank you, Mr. Birling. I’m on duty.
He also talks like a real inspector, such as asking questions and going through the whole story of what happened, starting at the beginning, and going through Eva Smiths life story.
Inspector: Do you remember her, Mr. Birling?
Birling: No – I seem to remember hearing that name – Eva Smith – somewhere. But it doesn’t convey anything to me. And I don’t see where I come into this.
Inspector: She was employed in your works at one time.
Act one, page 12
Sheila’s reactions to Goole change towards the end of Act one, as you can see she doesn’t like the way he is blaming her for something she doesn’t believe is her fault, and she runs out crying. He also gives her a lot of questions to answer, quickly.
‘And why did you do that?’ ‘And what had this girl done to make you lose your temper?’ ‘ And was it the girls fault?’
Act One page 23
The inspector expresses his opinions about the behaviour of Gerald and Mrs. Birling in a way that a normal police officer wouldn’t. It isn’t in a normal scope of an investigation. He seems to be blaming them on something that they have done, which are small things, but when put together, seems quite a big deal and that its all their faults, even though it isn’t. The officer, if real, probably wouldn’t get them to confess in front of each other but only with him witnessing it.
Even though the Birlings are higher in class that the inspector, you can see the inspector has full control over what is said, and he is also able to make all his points clear. I think this is because J.B. Priestly wants to prove that all class should be treated equally, because just because you have less money, doesn’t make you any worse at anything.
If someone says something to the inspector that contradicts his opinions, he is able to twist their words to make it sound different, or like they have confessed something that they haven’t.
I think Priestly has included the closing speech to show the reader that even if you don’t mean something, when everything adds up, it can make a bigger deal, and you should always think before you do something to someone else. It is also putting across the socialist views of J.B. Priestly, and about his views on class. It seems to bring out he whole meaning of the play. If priestly hadn’t included this closing speech, the play wouldn’t have mean much to the reader, and it wouldn’t seem finished. It seems to wrap up the whole play and give the moral of the story.
At the end of the play, we can answer the essay question set.
How has priestly used the role of the inspector in the play?’
All the way through the play, the inspector has been used to put across J.B. Priestly socialist views and class divisions. It shows at the end that everyone should be treated equally, and just because they are less well off, they shouldn’t be taken down by people of a higher class, and that there should not be class divisions as it can cause much pain in someone’s life just because someone has more money that another person.
