Bright Young Things discussion
Group Reads Archive
>
An Inspector Calls by J.B. Priestley (Moderator's choice Mar/Apr 2017)
Joined the local library, pick up a copy on Saturday.
Mod
For me, I like to pretend I'm a director - how would I want the sets and costumes to look, where would I place characters on a stage, who might I cast in the various roles and how might I get them to deliver their lines (...quietly, with emotion, slowly etc.). I also spend a fair bit of time on the introduction and I try to 'imagine' the characters in my head as I read...sometimes out loud and somet8imes even repeating the lines a few times!
...if all else fails, try to 'see' the play, there are various DVD or TV versions out there and some for free on YouTube.
I'll be back at the weekend to start some conversations once our members have had a chance to get started.
Enjoy!
I finally found it on the Barnes & Noble website and it arrived earlier this week.
Good choice, Ally. I just finished the play, and am looking forward to the discussion.
I do find it difficult to visualise a play unless I have seen a production of it, but luckily I have seen this one. Something that came out more strongly in reading it was the nuances of class within the establishment characters. I don't think it is an important aspect of the play, the gulf between them and Eva (and the many she represents, even if she is one person) is much wider, but it is something which did not show up in the production.One aspect that is important, I think, is that all the Birlings and Gerald were to blame for to what happened to 'Eva', but Goole (and by implication Priestly) does not allocate a greater share of it to any one or the other. The emphasis is on whether they will change afterwards.
I saw this staged a long time ago now, so I can't really remember it. I will read the play (I don't mind reading scripts) and am looking forward to discussing it.
Library copy picked up.Even though I've seen the live at the Lowry Theatre and various TV adaption's I am trying to forget their influence and see what the author conveys or fails to highlight or emphasise.
Mod
Ally wrote: "A fairly straightforward first question...how likeable do you find the characters of this play?"I didn't like any of the characters except for the Inspector who was very clever and moral, (view spoiler). Sheila was young and self-centered, but became more likable as the play continued. She realized how much responsibility that she and the other family members shared for Eva's actions.
The parents were the least likable people. They seemed to think that class and wealth put them above thinking how their actions would effect a working class person.
I didn't find any of the Birlings likeable either. It seemed at one point that Gerald Croft might be a bit better than the others, but he decides to close ranks at the end.This is an unfair society and it was even less fair at the time the play is set, 1912. Employers could and did dismiss employees who were regarded as trouble-makers; at least now there are tribunals those employees can appeal to. Charities nowadays are less judgemental about the people they are trying to help, but there are plenty of people in society who feel that it is somehow the victim's own fault, they just don't get involved in charity work any more. Both the Birling parents are acting in a way which was normal and acceptable for their time and society. Sybil Birling is shaken by the revelations, but more by the impact on her own family than by compassion for the young woman she rejected.
The younger Birlings are the product of that society and of those parents. They both act on impulse and are thoughtless of the consequences. Sheila is the worst, in my opinion, because hers is a petty, vindictive, spiteful act. She regrets it and as Connie says is the one who realises not just her own responsibility, but the whole family's, so there is hope that she will change and not be so selfish and thoughtless in the future. If I have sympathy for any of the Birlings, it would be for Eric, because he does try to live up to his responsibilities once the consequences arise. (view spoiler) We don't know what happens to Eric afterwards; he has already become more responsible, less selfish and thoughtless, and he is already somewhat alienated from his parents. He has a sense of doom around him and is the right age to get caught up in WWI, even if there are no more ramifications from what happens to Eva.
Edit: I didn't mention the other characters.
'Inspector' Goole is more of an elemental force than a character, I neither liked or disliked him, but I agree with and respect the forces of justice and social change he represents.
Eva is talked about but never seen, but there is a working-class character on stage: the parlourmaid, Edna. She is almost invisible and I'm not sure whether Priestly included her simply because the Birlings would have had a maid, or whether her nearly invisible presence is making a point about her wider social class being invisible as individuals to those of the Birlings' class.
I started to read this today - have just finished Act 1. Interesting that it was first produced in 1946 and is set in 1912. There are lots of nods to hindsight; both about the improbability of war and of technological wonders, such as Titanic, which probably would have raised a wry smile at the time. I have only started and I can't remember it all, but I wonder if what Sheila did was really more than spite and jealousy. I can imagine that she saw Eva smirking, felt humiliated and complained. It is hard, if she did something like that, for it not to get out of hand. If she asked to see the manager, then it is like a train rolling - she probably felt she had to say something and having Eva sacked was a relatively easy way for the manager to calm the situation and a wealthy client. In other words, she said she regretted it afterwards, but she probably regretted it at the time, but couldn't control herself. A 1912 version of road rage...
Looking at some of the television versions available online - I haven't watched any, just glanced through - Sheila is portrayed as plain and ungainly. Obviously, Eva is meant to be beautiful.
You make a good point about Edna, Val. She is invisible and yet servants would have known everything about a family. There, but unseen, as you say.
Susan, I'm sure you are right about Sheila, the situation escalates and the consequences of her action go far beyond what she intended at the time. She does regret it, but she does not go back to the shop and tell them so once she has calmed down.That makes her worse than Eric in my estimation. Most of us mess up or act thoughtlessly from time to time, but I would hope that most of us apologise and try to mitigate any consequences when we do.
Yes, I do understand - and agree with - what you are saying, Val. However, I can see how her thoughtless and, as you say, spiteful actions happened. I doubt she would go back, because she would not want to see the woman in question again and, in a smallish town, there probably weren't too many large department stores. That was probably the largest. She would assume (as all rich people do) that there were no consequences and the assistant would just go and get another job - preferably somewhere she did not have to have contact with her.
Mod
Yes, well put, Ally. A sense of entitlement that makes her seem the most important person in any equation and which makes Eva seem unworthy of consideration.
Mod
I finished it this evening. At the start almost no one is likeable. I thought the younger generation became more likeable as the play progressed. At least they were willing to try to learn from their errors. Unlike the elder Birlings.
Mod
It shines a light on the fact that the older generation have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of a class system and an economic and social model in which they win. They are less disturbed by the circumstances of the case than they are in how it might affect them and their position.
The younger generation are at least engaging in the plight of another human being and making some concessions towards empathy. Perhaps it's because the victim is closer to them in age or it could be because they are still under the yolk of parental control in a similar way to the economic and social control that exists for the victim. They have not yet come to an understanding of just how much they win by being part of their class.
Mod
...How is the workings of 'the establishment' portrayed in this play? What protections are invoked by being part of the 'establishment' and what consequences are there for anyone outside of 'the establishment ' ? Where does that leave the Inspector - is he part of 'the establishment ' or not?
It is made fairly clear that he cannot be of their class in that he doesn't play golf. Here, for many years various courses were both racist and sexist, and anti-semitic. No blacks, women or Jews were to be found on many courses, unless they were allowed in a servile position. I did watch a version of the play this afternoon. I believe it was a BBC television production from 1982 that I found on YouTube. I looked for the Alistair Sim version but Roku didn't have it. They'll let me know if they get it. There was also an 18 minute short about the play. Of course, I did fall asleep for a few minutes watching it.
But the short did put it in an historical light. It was written at the end of WWII and takes place on the day the Titanic sailed. This provided an interview with Priestley's son and played portions of the radio programs that he broadcast during the war.
The main 'establishment' protection seems to mainly depend on having or having access to money. Birling is not upper-class (compared to his wife and Gerald Croft's family) but he has money and so he is accepted by people who might otherwise be considered his social betters. He is keen to protect his social position because he feels that he has fought to achieve it. (The snobbier golf clubs still probably wouldn't let him join.) His money comes from not paying his workers well and he has the power to hire and fire them however he wants, he 'owns' them because he pays them.The other Birlings and Gerald have a greater sense of entitlement based on class and family connections, going to 'good' schools, growing up with a higher social position and so on.
Whether the Inspector belongs to it or not depends on how you define 'the establishment'. As a police officer he is part of the forces of law and order which uphold it, without necessarily being a part of it. As a more nebulous force of justice or a conscience, he is not part of it at all. I don't think his social class is made clear, his authority comes from his rank, (view spoiler)
A more general comment: It is generally quite difficult for older people to change in any significant way, whether it is embracing new technology or new ideas, if they have been doing things and thinking in a set way for many years. I think Priestley was being realistic about the elder Birlings, unfortunately.
Mod
Not only benefits, but status. He is aware his wife thinks she married below her, he is concerned his daughter may be looked at in the same way by her in-law's, which is why he seeks to reassure Gerald. This is, therefore, not only about him, but his children and their future.
Mod
Even Gerald's affair with Daisy Renton/Eva Smith is not shocking for the insult and disrespect it shows their daughter. It's shocking for the older Birlings purely for its 'scandal' inducing nature. When Sheila gives back Gerald's ring, for example, Birling tells her not to be too hasty. Is this really the reaction of a father who wants his daughter's happiness in marriage? or of a man who wants to ensure her financial and social position and by extension his own?
In their social circle is the idea of a man having an affair simply par for the course?
Interestingly, I like Sheila's reactions here. She is not saying no to a relationship continuing with Gerald, simply saying that she wants to get to know him all over again. She's keen to base her relationship on the truth. She wants to stay and hear the whole truth from Gerald's own lips and is not willing to be 'protected' by refusing to be sent away. In life, we deal better with what we know than what we don't know. Relationships are difficult but Sheila seems to have the right idea.
Just finished reading the play.Will post later, after reading all the comments already made.
I am going to depart from the Birlings and look at Goole.Who is Goole? How does he know such things.
Is he someone close to Eva seeking revenge?
Is he the murderer? The real police telephone call didn't mention suicide.
Or is Goole something much less tangible. Let's look at the name, names are choose with care by authors so is it Goole or are we being toyed with, should is be Ghoul.
Goole is certainly used by the author to convey not only those discussions above but also to show that each action we take is part of a series of actions that impinge on each others lives, however insignificant that interaction may appear to be.
From what I gather or could find Priestley was not a particularly religious man. So who is Goole, he certainly invokes spikes of conscience (to a point) in the other characters.
Many religions have 'guardian angels' or 'ancestors' that watch over us, is Goole is character. It's true that this it didn't help Eva, but does he represent that the watchers of the Birlings and Gerald have come together to show that redemption can be at hand?
I took my copy back to the library today and so I can't check this, but I don't think Inspector Goole ever says that he is a police inspector, that is assumed by the other characters. Is he an inspector in the sense of close, analytical observer, not of the law, but of society and social attitudes, or (as I prefer to think of it in broader terms) a conscience?
I felt that Inspector Goole was a spiritual being with knowledge beyond what someone would read in a diary. He forced each person to examine their actions and values. I like Val's idea of a conscience.
Mod
Sheila, almost immediately, sees that the Inspector has a depth of understanding and an omniscience that is not worth the effort to tackle. Her warnings to her mother Sybil fall on deaf ears at first - it seems to take the older generation a lot longer to realise their own culpability. They have tunnel vision or are perhaps deliberately slow to accept as a means of protecting their view of themselves and the world as they prefer to see it.
It's important if you are going to enjoy the trappings and the spoils of 'industry' that you are blind to those exploited in its undertaking. Birling and his wife need to believe that girls 'like her' deserve their place in the world and that it's natural that they should be subordinated for profit. Keeping costs down, keeping wages low, keeping the workforce 'needy' gives the type of industry depicted, in this case a mill, it's profitability. If the people who populate that workforce are made more human then the bubble bursts. the natural order that the elder Birlings believe in collapses.
Goole's questioning forces the Birlings, and the audience, to accept the unpalatable truths of what Capitalist Industry means for people like Daisy/Eva, which is partly why this play is considered to be 'socialist' in nature.
Is it significant that the play was first performed in Russia in 1945?
Yes Goole is there to evoke conscience in the characters. Some more so than others.No surprise that it was first shown in the USSR. It is thought that the author had pro communist leanings. Hence Orwell thought it was inappropriate for him to write for the IRD within the Foreign Office.
Priestley was more socialist than communist, he was one of the founders of the Common Wealth party / pressure group. He disapproved of the way Stalin was controlling the USSR, but some of his plays were suitably anti-capitalist to be put on there however.The overall tone of the play is socialist. The elder Birlings and Sheila all treat Eva as if she is someone of no importance, although Sheila does later realise she was wrong to do so. Gerald Croft does too, his Daisy is alright as a mistress and he does see her as an individual, but you can't see him ever suggesting marriage if he'd been the one to get her pregnant.
Each character is shown to be a product of their upbringing and that that continue with generation until the cycle is broken.Birlings Snr a self made man, as was Gatsby, but Birlings was known to be legal wealth , immoral possibly. His social status was achieved through risk taking and as such he believes his entitlement to his wealth. Those beneath him are there because of there failure to take risks and so are in some responsible for their social position. We know Eva was part of the what would become a Trade Union Movement, a very real treat to any employers absolute power. Any rise in wages or other costs is seen as a treat to his empire and his response is natural in that way. And today this 'them and us' still prevails. Birlings Snr cares only for his wealth and reputation, everything else either conforms or is discarded or reasoned away, see the way Gerald's affair is viewed.
Mrs Birlings, from money and married money but married socially beneath her - how irksome. She has little appreciation of the realities of the world she lives in. Like many of her type they tried to settle their conscience by her charity work. The reality is that if her husband paid a decent living wages charity may not have been needed. Again she believes to a superior out of breeding and money but is she superior out of merit? She will live with the guilt of being in part responsible for the death of her unborn grandchild but will try to justify her actions.
Sheila, the poor little rich girl. her attitude was totally unacceptable but not to her family, the serving girls have their place. She has much to learn if she chooses to do so and it appears she has that intention, so redemption can be at hand.
Gerald, guided by the older men, would or could Shelia bring Gerald to redemption.her clearly seas the working classes as resources to be used in the furtherance of progress (oh and making them rich(er)).
And Eric, the one who never really fitted in, he too could be redeemed and has far to go. I feel that he forced his affection on Eva. He knows it and the family know it too, but as Eva is dead little proof exists. What was Eric looking for, he choose to go with Eva as she was different?
Should this play have had a sequel? What happened next with the real policeman. Was there a knighthood, was there a change of heart by the characters. Gerald & Eric would have gone to war, would Sheila have children, was Eva child the only chance of a grandchild? That's for ourselves to decide.
How does the entitlement of the British middle classes as portrayed in this played contrast with those in The Great Gatsby?
Is it so similar, that is 'money and power is mine and you will bend to me will because I am superior'.
Mod
Is the moral message more clear in An Inspector Calls or in The Great Gatsby?
What differences are there in the British set play compared to the American set novel?
Mod
This was a time before the welfare state when philanthropy included wealthy women like Sybil providing support within the community to those who fell on hard times. In this play we see the money allocated on conditions of being the 'right' sort of person, perhaps someone of Christian moral standing.
Inspector Goole's intense cross examination of Sybil brings the reader to the attention of the flaws of such as system but fails to get any level of recognition of any wrongdoing from Sybil herself.
I'm guessing that at the time this play was written the UK (and probably America too) was in the grips of a national debate about what a country fit for heroes might look like and how we can support people from the cradle to the grave...the National Health Service (NHS) in England was founded only 2 years after this play was first performed.
How does this episode of the play make members feel about the welfare state?
(...I ask this with some trepidation but within the context of current news stories in the US about President Trump losing the debate about 'ObamaCare' and stories in the UK about the future of our NHS, the reduction in benefits as we move towards Universal Credit etc.).
We do now have a welfare state, which acts as a safety net for those who need its support. The idea that some of the poor are deserving of help and others are scroungers who don't has not unfortunately gone away.The previous question is more complex. Priestley is obviously trying to show that the privileged have a responsibility towards the less privileged, but I am not sure that Fitzgerald is moralising. He is reflecting the way society is / was and showing it as rotten, but not making a statement of how it should be, in the that way that Priestley is.
It find the reason for writing each book Priestley & Fitzgerald was different. Priestley intentionally sets out to discuss and highlight a socialist agenda, whereas Fitzgerald wrote about a failed love story brought about through his own experience, would Fitzgerald have written The Great Gatsby if he had been able to marry Zelda, I doubt it as his motivation would not have been there.
I have an issue with the need for charity in a modern civilized society, particularly if it provides what we may consider basic human needs or even rights. . Ever question why there are needed? Yet we see Sybil seeing it as a good thing she does, whereas a change in societies views may do more, from changing it from charity based handout to a basic human right provided in a structure manner by an elected government.
I feel that Priestley is pointing this across through the actions of Sybil, who is the last hope of those who are down.
Val, I grew up with the phrase 'the deserving poor', it's quite a wide definition.
Is Eva a deserving poor at all stages during the play? Or does she, by her actions bring that upon herself as Sybil refers to. I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. Priestley tells us yes.
Do you mean had Fitzgerald been able to marry Ginerva? By the time Gatsby was published he had been married to Zelda for 5 years.
Regarding Sybil and her charity work:A safety net provided by the government gives people some basic help when they are in need. But a charity group like Sybil's involves begging for help on a more personal basis. People are having to disclose their personal history to a bunch of rich women who will probably gossip about them later. The rich women can use their own biases to help the poor people or reject them. It seems more demeaning to the poor than a government safety net.
I don't know about other countries, but Social Security in the UK is very much more intrusive into a claimant's private life than Sybil. They would want to know about previous sources of income (including Gerald), previous addresses (Gerald's friend's flat), the father of the baby (Eric) and his financial circumstances, etc. If the play was written now, Priestley would have to make Inspector Goole a DSS investigator.
Mod
I was wondering what the modern equivalent was and thought immediately if Ken Loach films like 'I Daniel Blake'. But most social commentary now comes through social media. Mainstream platforms don't seem to exist in the same way today as they did for reformers of the past. Or maybe I'm wrong?
I agree Ally, most comments are either social media, or designed to headline grab.It is as if anything more is just too much effort to think about. Unless it affects you no-one either cares or just doesn't want you sit down think about it and understand modern society.
In that way are more like the Birlings than we dare to admit.
There are still socially conscious authors, and The Orwell Prize to recognise them, plus plenty of well written, in-depth journalism. I prefer to see the newer media as an addition to the established ones than as a replacement for them, but I wouldn't rely on them.
Mod
"...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, with what we think and say and do. We don't live alone. We are members of one body, We are responsible for each other..."
It depends whether we identify with or have any empathy with the Eva or John Smith''s.There are many who believe you make your own luck in this world. The opportunities then for the rank and file of working class not the same as now, so I wonder with the passage of time that authors comment have a lesser impact.
Mod
I wonder, how many of us really feel any kind of responsibility or connection with others outside of our friend, family or work colleagues?
How does what I do, how I choose to live, impact others?
How much do we care? The 'I'm all right jack' way of thinking seems to me stronger now than when I was a child but am I looking back through rose tinted specs or is it really much less of a 'society' now?
When Trump announced that he was going to cut off funding for Meals on Wheels there was an immediate increase in donations. Possibly partly because no one wanted their elderly parents cut off but also because people want to think of the helpless getting at least one hot meal a day (none on weekends). So we know our president couldn't care less about society and it's needs but I think people generally, when they see the need, want to help. At least, if they were brought up even halfway decently.
Bright Young Things
Books mentioned in this topic
An Inspector Calls and Other Plays (other topics)The Great Gatsby (other topics)
It Can't Happen Here (other topics)
An Inspector Calls and Other Plays by J.B. Priestley
This, being a play, is a different kind of read for the Bright Young Things and perhaps less likely to win a vote for one of our monthly book discussions.
I've chosen 'An Inspector Calls' for two reasons:
* I think that it will offer some great parallels with our last Moderator's Choice, The Great Gatsby (see: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...)
* I think it will be a good counterpoint to our March Fiction choice It Can't Happen Here.
This should allow us to look at the themes and characterisations in a wider context and make for a fascinating group discussion.
It's interesting times that we're living in right now, both in the US and also in the UK and Europe. Who is to say what will happen as a result of Brexit, as a result of the Trump administration or indeed what will happen if France gets a far right leader in the shape of Marine Le Penn or if Germany elects a new leader effectively ending the leadership of Angela Merkel?
It feels like a good time to read or re-read some of the books and plays from our era of interest (1900-1945) that explore similar changes and how people felt about politics, society and social responsibility.