Talk:An Inspector Calls

This is NOT a Chat board for GCSE Students

There are other websites for that. This page is for the discussion of this article. Please try to keep it that way :) Sophiaaa.x (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLEANED UP!

I've sorted out the mess in Stage,Tv,Film,Radio and used the title production with sub categories. Similar needs to be done in other instances; if we could have seperate articles for each character aswell? Ameeromar (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also cleaned up the characters so that the section is not split up into Birlings and others but instead Main characters and Other Characters

I've also added Alderman Meggarty's character info; if this could be updated and improved as I don't have the text on me at the moment.

I've also put the information on the CD release in publications so that its grouped with all the other releases.

I've pretty much cleaned up the whole mess Ameeromar (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this needs more cleaning up. I just came here to get a bit more background information on it for my GCSE coursework and there were an array of mistakes ranging from missed capital letters and sentences that made no sense at all. 82.3.186.129 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked the lede, but the above comments from 82.3.186.129 are still valid. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rapid addition of spoiler tags

Though this article is in closer need of attention, I've added spoiler tags above and below the character synopses. To be honest, enough people have had this play ruined for them by the GCSE, and I don't see why that trend should continue here. O'Shuva 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the whole article one long spoiler? I am certainly very glad I listened to the play before reading this. 186.28.205.163 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Set in 1912 but written in '45

I'm fairly sure the article is wrong and the play was written in 1945 but set in 1912, and the dramatic irony was intentional. Can anyone confirm this? --Gutya 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sooooooo what that doesnt matter. there are loads of books written today and are based years ago!!!!!!! durrrr

Yes, But for someone writing an essay on the play this is very important. --Gutya 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dramatic irony is of course intentional. Priestly writes with hindsight after the two world wars. This is what is meant by the Inspector's final speech with his reference to 'fire and anguish'. - Sophiaaa.x 08:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is correct, written in '45 but about 1912. Meateater 09:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"World War 2" now removed as uncited—it's had a {{cn}} request for some months now—but could come back with a WP:RS. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated, with ref.[1] --217.155.32.221 (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

article needs attention

This article really looks like it's just been constructed by the GCSE students who have been studying the play. I did it some years ago at GCSE and to be honest was not inspired, but subsequently having looked at it in the context of Priestly's other plays it is interesting. This article makes it look about as interesting as it appeared to me at GCSE. It really needs some attention - the bit saying that the play uses dramatic devices for example. Well, I hate to say it, but it is a play, so clearly it's going to employ 'dramatic devices'. No play doesn't.

That's almost insulting to GCSE students :P I agree though, it really does need beefing out.

Wikipedia is about helping people. If GCSE students have knowledge, I would encourage them to share it. School is not a good place for the intelligent students to share ideas- but Wikipedia is. It does not need people like you discouraging edits. 81.109.94.62 18:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of spelling correction and beefing out yesterday, I'll keep going. Cricketgirl 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - surely this shouldn't be part of a WikiProject films, but rather Literature? In which case, why the bit at the top of the discussion page? Cricketgirl 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks like lots has gone wrong since the last comment on this talk page. Ok, the 'subject' in the sidebar is completely wrong and should be spell-checked or ommitted, the characters are not in order of importance so reading the article makes no sense whatsoever. The Plot Synopsis is actually not a plot synopsis and is just a random collection of facts about things which happen in the play. All the Inspector Goole theories should either be moved to his character section or to a differnt topic on the page instead of being included in plot synopsis. General spellchecking is advisable. I am too busy writing an essay about this play right now to actually do much cleaning up. Hopefully somebody else will do the job for me and the rest of the Wikipedia community ;-) will1207 18:45 (GMT), 20 October 2008

Things about the play.

MAIN POINTS to include in an essay

The play is extremely contraversial in its twentieth century political standing.

Eva Smith is not killed, she commits suicide.

There is a longstanding debate about just who Inspector Goole is because it is confirmed within the play he is not a real police inspector.

It's spelt "Birling".

Inspector Goole may not even be a real person due to the obvious pun on his name. (Goole/Ghoul)

can somebody type up a summary for eric Birling

- What, so you can paste it into your coursework? Do you fancy doing my job for me in return? Thought not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.180.4 (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone add more on the characters

I've re-arranged the characters into the right sections Ameeromar (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The characters are vital to the plot, and I have added a basic structure. But somebody needs to add detail, as it is practically a stub.

I've added some info about Arthur, and there's a good source at BBC GCSE revision (I can remember using that for my GCSEs a while back.) I'll try and go through them all eventually.Paj.meister 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The characters certainly have enough on them now, possibly verging on too much. the seperate articles read more like mini-essays, and could do with cleanup. Wrincewind 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Warning Maybe

Yup i think so

I certainly agree; I'm not studying the play, and it seems that all references to the play on the web are entirely for or about people who are studying it rather than watching it, y'know, for fun. I'm one of the latter, and I'm very lucky I didn't stumble across a spoiler which would have rather ruined the ending for me. I'll quickly edit the article and separate out a spoiler if I can. -- Archfalhwyl 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand, maybe I will go through the information submitted and section it, seeing as no one else will:DLindaaaaa. (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

record-keeping note

All the recent edits were performed by me. --Poorsod 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

u can see who made the edits from the History, we don't need u to tell us. Ghingo

But if you make more than minor edits, it's a good idea to explain why here. Thanks, Ben Aveling 19:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying themes etc.

The story of this play is all about Socialist vs Capitalist views. The references to "Community" being "Nonsense" recognizes Birling as an ignorant capitalist, whereas Goole [who has "lower" social standing] clearly shows himself as a socialist due to his final speech. It's a great play as well [and I'm doing it for GCSE], it deserves attention.

New person: I was changed some spelling eg... sheila's was sheilia's and fiancee now has the accent over the first e ...

One underlying theme not mentioned here is the very special type of socialism preached by Priestley. This is the socialism of the non-conformist chapel. If you have any doubts remember the fire and brimstone of Goole's final speech.

Another theme ignored here is the chronology, Priestley apparently deliberately causes Eva to die after Goole has left the house. Or is this is so? Priestley was influenced by the theories of JW Dunne and Dunne had argued that all of time exists as one and that it is only our perception that makes things seem sequential or assigns an arrow of time to events. Of course this is a matter for discussion because if all of time existed at once, the role of free will and action would have to be considered to be entirely illusory as well, something which would rather undermine Priestley's socialist sympathies. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Notes/Update

If more needs to be added on, someone should add it (I'm not very familiar with this work and can't really add much more.) The article seems pretty cleaned-up, for the most part. I also removed some vandalism. I am going to remove the cleanup tag, and if anyone disagrees they can re-ad it.--Fisheromen 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Goole/Ghoul thing

it is an established view that the inspector could be recognised as a ghost, it's not original research so I'm removing the big I thing.

Really? I'm doing it for GCSE as well, I put that possibility in, but do you have any sources? Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 21:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful for T.Y.B.Com. Students!!!

I'm Hussain Savani from Morbi City of Gujarat(India). This article is really helpful to T.Y.B.Com Student of Saurashtra University. In this article they showed "Ghoul"/"Goole" thing... wondering is it the truth... i'm gonna write it in exams ;-) Does anybody knows from where I can see a visual play that was played in 1946!!! kindly help if anybody know :-)

Picture

I added a picture I found from the play's "official" website : www.aninspectorcalls.com

I hope this is ok - it seems to add to the overall neatness of the article, don't you think? Should it be placed somewhere else? I tried placing it in the introduction except it messed with the format, so I just put it in the synopsis.

It looks pritty good, but are you sure it isn't copyrighted? Also, please sign your messages using four tiles (~) Larklight 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article

What happened to a plot summary? And the character def.s are a tinsy bit too long. Larklight 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spilt

Right, this article is way too long. I'm not sure of the protocall (most peeps here liook like GCSE students too) but the length on each character boarders and essay- not suitable for wikipedia. I recomend each one becomes a separate article. Thoguths? Larklight 17:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as no-one else seems to be opposed, I've split the article and cropted industreously.Larklight 13:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing information

As somebody who is unfamiliar with the play and went to Wikipedia for information, I found the article very confusing. The surprise ending (that the supposedly moral inspector is an imposter) is buried in the character descriptions; this should either be omitted or made much more prominent. On several occasions Priestly's attitude is called socialist (a term rarely used in US literary criticism). Is this explicit, or is the article writer simply assuming that because he satirizes a rich family? (KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS, from the same era, also satirizes a rich family, but I've never heard it classified as socialist) CharlesTheBold 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be gald if you could at least sort out the article yourself, although i will sort it out at some point. The character descriptions were much longer; what is now the individual pag es.

GCSEs demand some reference that priestley was a socialist, but the actual play does not make it explicit: he could be asking for a more moral upper class, rather than forciblie red distribution. Larklight 14:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another note from someone else:

keep it as it is! its fine! just leave it! please! its been really helpful to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.174.77 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GCSE (to be changed)

This is not just taught in Scotland and Bedfordshire. It is tauht all over the UK. I am living in wales and i still get taught it. Please someone change that :D 172.188.60.168 15:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Murder

I've once again gone through the article with a flamethrower. Try to keep it encyclopedic? Larklight (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey!!!!!!!!! this article helped me alot with my work i had to do a homewrk on characterists and this helped me alot and plz carry on doing this article by giving more information so tnx for the help xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.248.7 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I don't know if anyones noticed but the Character Arthur Birling has been vandalised I have looked up the history, and it is one of the anons from the 12th of March. This is utterly moronic and pointless. Shame on who ever did it. -KR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.97.63 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sybil Birling

Mrs Birling is a arrogant old woman, who only cares about her business. She compares people to herself and Mr Birling in the social status. She is way worser than Mr Birling. She don't stop bragging on about Mr Birling. How he been this and done that. Also she can't even control her own family.

Could someone familiar with the play please rewrite the above section in an encyclopaedic style, or at the very least, grammatical English? Thanks in advance --Mattmm (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Problems

Has anyone noticed that almost all of this article consists of analysis of the play and the characters. Most of it is subjective, and all of it is unreferenced. We can do better than this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic irony

"In several instances of dramatic irony, author uses the character of Mr. Birling to dismiss the possibility of several events that happened after the play came out, so the audience already knew the full story about these events and the fact that they actually happened.(such as the sinking of the Titanic and World War I)." - what's this supposed to mean? That Priestly added ironic dialogue to the play after its release? It doesn't make a lot of sense as written. --McGeddon (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the UK does the play take place?

The article says

"The play is a three-act drama, which takes place on a single night in 1912, and focuses on the prosperous middle-class industrialist Birling family, who live in a comfortable home in Burmley in suburban London."

I thought it takes place in Brumley, which is an imaginary town in the industrial North of England, and certainly not in London. The actors in the film and TV versions of the play always talk in North of England accents and the way the play is written clearly indicates that they are in a small town where the local factory owners and their families are big shots. Brumley is perhaps a pun on Birmingham.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen.redburn (talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted and thanks for the fix. Refs and quote added as the point has been in some contention. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I actually found it is a reference to another town called Burnley and its a industrial town so yeah! Wkc19 :) (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conscience

Minor edit explained: "Conciousness" reverted to "conscience". Compare New Oxford American Dictionary: "Conciousness" is "awareness or perception of something", whereas "Conscience" is a "guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior". "Conscience" better fits the meaning. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critics speculating

Critics may speculate, but WP contributors may not. I've tagged a speculative sentence in "Productions" and propose to delete it, particularly as the references iin the preceding sentence specifically state that the reason was simply lack of capacity in London. BTW Priestley was a member of a Britain-Soviet Union friendship committee and possibly this was the reason the first night ended up in Leningrad (now that's speculation for you!).--217.155.32.221 (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No defenders? Done. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There IS Such a Thing as Society!

Is not part of the article a damming reflection on what might be termed a 'My Family" mindset? That is long-standing right-wing thinking about the way family should remain self-contained, insular and remote from the concerns of society. While forcible red distribution of ill-gottenn gains seeems a good idea, is not the play more intetested in highlighting the kind of 'sod you Jack' rejection of social responsibility seen in the capitalist class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.164 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot elements in 'Characters'

I agreed with some other contributors that the character descriptions contain too much plot. I tried to do something about it, but I haven't got the text (I listened to a radio version a couple of times) so am hesitant to do much. Does Sheila really refer to (or address) her father as 'Daddy', as claimed in her (over-long) character description? I heard 'Father' at least twice in the radio version. In any case, 'Daddy' and 'Mummy' are used by grown-up posh people as well as by children. There is a remarkable lack of references in parts of this article. Snugglepuss (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error with chronology in 'Reception and interpretation' section

'The struggle between the embattled patriarch Arthur Birling and Inspector Goole ... arguably demonstrates Priestley's socialist political criticism of the perceived selfishness and moral hypocrisy of middle-class capitalist society in 1950s Britain.' 1950s is clearly wrong, as the play was written in 1945. There is a (rare) reference after this sentence, to http://www.oxnotes.com/an-inspector-calls-context-and-political-views.html. I looked at it to find out what it actually says. It's a poor source, very amateurish: its creator seems to have some enthusiasm for the play, but the text is badly written, spelling 'Priestley' as 'Priestly' several times, and I couldn't find which bit of it was considered the source of these remarks. Does anyone feel able to start this section from scratch? Snugglepuss (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]