What do you think?
Rate this book
An Inspector Calls
Excellent Book
117 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1945
330 people are currently reading
9178 people want to read
About the author
J.B. Priestley
466 books285 followersJohn Boynton Priestley, the son of a schoolmaster, was born in Bradford in September 1894, and after schooling he worked for a time in the local wool trade. Following the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, Priestley joined the British Army, and was sent to France --in 1915 taking part in the Battle of Loos. After being wounded in 1917 Priestley returned to England for six months; then, after going back to the Western Front he suffered the consequences of a German gas attack, and, treated at Rouen, he was declared unfit for active service and was transferred to the Entertainers Section of the British Army.
When Priestley left the army he studied at Cambridge University, where he completed a degree in Modern History and Political Science. Subsequently he found work as theatre reviewer with the Daily News, and also contributed to the Spectator, the Challenge and Nineteenth Century. His earliest books included The English Comic Characters (1925), The English Novel (1927), and English Humour (1928). His breakthrough came with the immensely popular novel The Good Companions, published in 1929, and Angel Pavement followed in 1930. He emerged, too, as a successful dramatist with such plays as Dangerous Corner (1932), Time and the Conways (1937), When We Are Married (1938) and An Inspector Calls (1947).
The publication of English Journey in 1934 emphasised Priestley's concern for social problems and the welfare of ordinary people.
During the Second World War Priestley became a popular and influential broadcaster with his famous Postscripts that followed the nine o'clock news BBC Radio on Sunday evenings. Starting on 5th June 1940, Priestley built up such a following that after a few months it was estimated that around 40 per cent of the adult population in Britain was listening to the programme.
Some members of the Conservative Party, including Winston Churchill, expressed concern that Priestley might be expressing left-wing views on the programme, and, to his dismay, Priestley was dropped after his talk on 20th October 1940.
After the war Priestley continued his writing, and his work invariably provoked thought, and his views were always expressed in his blunt Yorkshire style.
His prolific output continued right up to his final years, and to the end he remained the great literary all-rounder. His favourite among his books was for many years the novel Bright Day, though he later said he had come to prefer The Image Men.
It should not be overlooked that Priestley was an outstanding essayist, and many of his short pieces best capture his passions and his great talent and his mastery of the English language. He set a fine example for any would-be author.
When Priestley left the army he studied at Cambridge University, where he completed a degree in Modern History and Political Science. Subsequently he found work as theatre reviewer with the Daily News, and also contributed to the Spectator, the Challenge and Nineteenth Century. His earliest books included The English Comic Characters (1925), The English Novel (1927), and English Humour (1928). His breakthrough came with the immensely popular novel The Good Companions, published in 1929, and Angel Pavement followed in 1930. He emerged, too, as a successful dramatist with such plays as Dangerous Corner (1932), Time and the Conways (1937), When We Are Married (1938) and An Inspector Calls (1947).
The publication of English Journey in 1934 emphasised Priestley's concern for social problems and the welfare of ordinary people.
During the Second World War Priestley became a popular and influential broadcaster with his famous Postscripts that followed the nine o'clock news BBC Radio on Sunday evenings. Starting on 5th June 1940, Priestley built up such a following that after a few months it was estimated that around 40 per cent of the adult population in Britain was listening to the programme.
Some members of the Conservative Party, including Winston Churchill, expressed concern that Priestley might be expressing left-wing views on the programme, and, to his dismay, Priestley was dropped after his talk on 20th October 1940.
After the war Priestley continued his writing, and his work invariably provoked thought, and his views were always expressed in his blunt Yorkshire style.
His prolific output continued right up to his final years, and to the end he remained the great literary all-rounder. His favourite among his books was for many years the novel Bright Day, though he later said he had come to prefer The Image Men.
It should not be overlooked that Priestley was an outstanding essayist, and many of his short pieces best capture his passions and his great talent and his mastery of the English language. He set a fine example for any would-be author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,495 reviews
January 9, 2025
An Inspector Calls is a memorable play from the mid-1940s, written by the popular English dramatist J.B. Priestley. Partly both philosophical and psychological, partly a moral fable, it is one of Priestley's best known works for the stage. It deals with issues of exploitation, abandonment and social ruin, within the framework of a detective mystery. And just to add a little more spice, it also has hints of the supernatural. However it is firmly rooted in the English society life of the time, and thus is now considered to be a classic of "drawing room" theatre. The text is often studied in English schools as part of the English Literature GCSE examination. Additionally there has been a successful revival in live theatre productions in recent years, despite the fact that the play does feel heavily dated.
The play takes place on a single night in 1912, slightly before the First World War, and focuses on the prosperous middle-class Birling family, who live in a comfortable home in Brumley, "an industrial city in the north Midlands". There are three acts, all of which are clearly marked with directions for the set and staging, which J.B. Priestley felt could be contained within one set, with differently lighted areas. Interestingly, he states,
"The lighting should be pink and intimate until the INSPECTOR arrives, and then it should be brighter and harder".
Examples such as this one show that the author deliberately influenced the audiences' perceptions about this character right from the start, in a subtly low-key way. Additionally Priestley is very clear about the physical attributes of his characters and their demeanour, to similar effect. He leaves nothing to chance.
A key character in the play, and one who controls and manipulates the action, is the inspector of the title, Inspector Goole. The entire play is set in the drawing room of the Birley family, as Inspector Goole questions the family about a young working-class woman, Eva Smith, also known as Daisy Renton, who has apparently killed herself. The family are nonplussed
The themes here are close to J.B. Priestley's heart. John Boynton Priestley, to give him his full name, was born in 1894 in Bradford, a city in West Yorkshire in the north of England. It seems as if his home town might be the basis for his invention of "Brumley" in An Inspector Calls, as he described his home as being in an "ultra respectable" suburb. A clever boy, the son of a schoolteacher, Priestley went to grammar school, and then studied at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, after a period of military service during the First World War. During the Second World War he became a well known voice on the radio, having in the meantime established a reputation as a journalist and critic. His output was vast, including 50 plays and adaptations, several novels, volumes of autobiographical works, plus numerous essays and miscellaneous papers. He became known for his common sense attitudes, in a way representing the "voice of the common people". Margaret Drabble said that he,
"consciously cultivated various poses - of grumbling patriot, cosmopolitan Yorkshireman, professional amateur, cultured Philistine [and] reactionary Radical."
His left-wing beliefs often brought him into conflict with the government of the time, but his was an influential voice at the start of the Welfare State.
Issues of class are raised time and time again in An Inspector Calls. Although the characters seem to a modern reader to be part of a narrow band of society, there are divisions within it which the characters feel have to be observed. Mrs. Birling is her husband's social superior; he refers to himself as a "hard-headed practical man of business". Equally, Sheila's fiance Gerald would be her social superior if they got married. This becomes evident when the audience learns that his mother, Lady Croft, disapproves of Sheila as a potential wife for her son. Eva Smith could be disregarded by any of them as being of any importance, as she was a member of a lower order, a working girl "of that class", as Mrs. Birley says.
At first it seems extraordinary that the very first performance of An Inspector Calls, was actually in 1945 in the Soviet Union, before its premiere in the UK in 1946. One wonders what the Russian people would have made of such drawing room drama, especially at the time of the Soviet Union. Yet much of Priestley's work has been adapted for the Russian stage, cinema and television. And on reflection, perhaps it should not be so surprising. J. B. Priestley was a Socialist, and both his experience and his political principles fed very much into his writing.
As well as the emphasis on class, the author makes it clear that the two younger members of the family, Eric and Sheila especially, are far more shaken by what has happened than their parents. Sheila protests,
"But these girls aren't cheap labour - they're people".
Indeed there are moments when Sheila herself is used as a device to imply precognition. There seems to be a heavy element of doom as she says, "Be careful you don't ask for any more, Gerald." And when she later says to her mother,
"You see, I feel you're beginning all wrong. And I'm afraid you'll say something or do something that you'll be sorry for afterwards"
the audience feels an empathic frisson with her apparent psychic ability.
The parents however, Arthur and Sybil, continue to refuse to accept any responsibility. The author is drawing a distinction between those who have accepted their responsibility and those who have not. The Inspector at one point comments that he finds the younger generation more impressionable, more idealistic. Perhaps J.B. Priestley, who greatly admired H. G. Wells, had a hope that Britain's future might take a Socialist turn. He thought that it was the duty of everybody to care about the general welfare of all. He also now seems like a natural literary successor to George Bernard Shaw. In fact at one point one of his characters says,
"We can't let these Bernard Shaws and H. G. Wellses do all the talking."
The whole action describes a chain of events in Eva Smith's life. The play sits quite well with several of the author's other plays, often referred to as his "Time" plays, of which the most famous are "Dangerous Corner", "Time and the Conways" and "I Have Been Here Before". In all of these he explores the idea of precognition, fate and predestination or free will. J .B. Priestley was fascinated with time and causality, most especially with J. W. Dunne's theory of time. This argued that the past was still present, and that time was not linear as had been traditionally believed. There is a final twist in the play. . It has been suggested that the knowledge the Inspector has of the "fire and blood and anguish," is itself precognition; a foreshadowing of the First and Second World Wars.
There is a lot of mystery and tension in this play, as well as it being a scathing description of the crumbling of middle class values. There is also black humour and irony, mostly from the mouth of the droll Inspector,
"A nice little promising life there, I thought, and a nasty mess somebody's made of it."
Its attraction is that it is not merely a play with a social conscience, but also with intriguing, possibly supernatural and ambiguous events. Throughout, the hypocrisies of Victorian and Edwardian English society are pointed up. An Inspector Calls was initially produced immediately after the Second World War, when society again was again in a state of flux, and undergoing many transformations. But in many ways this is a timeless classic. It has been a perennial favourite, being translated and produced all over the world, and a film of it from 1954 starring Alistair Sim is still popular. But the Inspector is very much J. B. Priestley's mouthpiece, when he insists,
"Public men, Mr Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges."
And his final message is crystal clear; we all have a responsibility for others.
"We do not live alone. We are members of one body."
The play takes place on a single night in 1912, slightly before the First World War, and focuses on the prosperous middle-class Birling family, who live in a comfortable home in Brumley, "an industrial city in the north Midlands". There are three acts, all of which are clearly marked with directions for the set and staging, which J.B. Priestley felt could be contained within one set, with differently lighted areas. Interestingly, he states,
"The lighting should be pink and intimate until the INSPECTOR arrives, and then it should be brighter and harder".
Examples such as this one show that the author deliberately influenced the audiences' perceptions about this character right from the start, in a subtly low-key way. Additionally Priestley is very clear about the physical attributes of his characters and their demeanour, to similar effect. He leaves nothing to chance.
A key character in the play, and one who controls and manipulates the action, is the inspector of the title, Inspector Goole. The entire play is set in the drawing room of the Birley family, as Inspector Goole questions the family about a young working-class woman, Eva Smith, also known as Daisy Renton, who has apparently killed herself. The family are nonplussed
The themes here are close to J.B. Priestley's heart. John Boynton Priestley, to give him his full name, was born in 1894 in Bradford, a city in West Yorkshire in the north of England. It seems as if his home town might be the basis for his invention of "Brumley" in An Inspector Calls, as he described his home as being in an "ultra respectable" suburb. A clever boy, the son of a schoolteacher, Priestley went to grammar school, and then studied at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, after a period of military service during the First World War. During the Second World War he became a well known voice on the radio, having in the meantime established a reputation as a journalist and critic. His output was vast, including 50 plays and adaptations, several novels, volumes of autobiographical works, plus numerous essays and miscellaneous papers. He became known for his common sense attitudes, in a way representing the "voice of the common people". Margaret Drabble said that he,
"consciously cultivated various poses - of grumbling patriot, cosmopolitan Yorkshireman, professional amateur, cultured Philistine [and] reactionary Radical."
His left-wing beliefs often brought him into conflict with the government of the time, but his was an influential voice at the start of the Welfare State.
Issues of class are raised time and time again in An Inspector Calls. Although the characters seem to a modern reader to be part of a narrow band of society, there are divisions within it which the characters feel have to be observed. Mrs. Birling is her husband's social superior; he refers to himself as a "hard-headed practical man of business". Equally, Sheila's fiance Gerald would be her social superior if they got married. This becomes evident when the audience learns that his mother, Lady Croft, disapproves of Sheila as a potential wife for her son. Eva Smith could be disregarded by any of them as being of any importance, as she was a member of a lower order, a working girl "of that class", as Mrs. Birley says.
At first it seems extraordinary that the very first performance of An Inspector Calls, was actually in 1945 in the Soviet Union, before its premiere in the UK in 1946. One wonders what the Russian people would have made of such drawing room drama, especially at the time of the Soviet Union. Yet much of Priestley's work has been adapted for the Russian stage, cinema and television. And on reflection, perhaps it should not be so surprising. J. B. Priestley was a Socialist, and both his experience and his political principles fed very much into his writing.
As well as the emphasis on class, the author makes it clear that the two younger members of the family, Eric and Sheila especially, are far more shaken by what has happened than their parents. Sheila protests,
"But these girls aren't cheap labour - they're people".
Indeed there are moments when Sheila herself is used as a device to imply precognition. There seems to be a heavy element of doom as she says, "Be careful you don't ask for any more, Gerald." And when she later says to her mother,
"You see, I feel you're beginning all wrong. And I'm afraid you'll say something or do something that you'll be sorry for afterwards"
the audience feels an empathic frisson with her apparent psychic ability.
The parents however, Arthur and Sybil, continue to refuse to accept any responsibility. The author is drawing a distinction between those who have accepted their responsibility and those who have not. The Inspector at one point comments that he finds the younger generation more impressionable, more idealistic. Perhaps J.B. Priestley, who greatly admired H. G. Wells, had a hope that Britain's future might take a Socialist turn. He thought that it was the duty of everybody to care about the general welfare of all. He also now seems like a natural literary successor to George Bernard Shaw. In fact at one point one of his characters says,
"We can't let these Bernard Shaws and H. G. Wellses do all the talking."
The whole action describes a chain of events in Eva Smith's life. The play sits quite well with several of the author's other plays, often referred to as his "Time" plays, of which the most famous are "Dangerous Corner", "Time and the Conways" and "I Have Been Here Before". In all of these he explores the idea of precognition, fate and predestination or free will. J .B. Priestley was fascinated with time and causality, most especially with J. W. Dunne's theory of time. This argued that the past was still present, and that time was not linear as had been traditionally believed. There is a final twist in the play. . It has been suggested that the knowledge the Inspector has of the "fire and blood and anguish," is itself precognition; a foreshadowing of the First and Second World Wars.
There is a lot of mystery and tension in this play, as well as it being a scathing description of the crumbling of middle class values. There is also black humour and irony, mostly from the mouth of the droll Inspector,
"A nice little promising life there, I thought, and a nasty mess somebody's made of it."
Its attraction is that it is not merely a play with a social conscience, but also with intriguing, possibly supernatural and ambiguous events. Throughout, the hypocrisies of Victorian and Edwardian English society are pointed up. An Inspector Calls was initially produced immediately after the Second World War, when society again was again in a state of flux, and undergoing many transformations. But in many ways this is a timeless classic. It has been a perennial favourite, being translated and produced all over the world, and a film of it from 1954 starring Alistair Sim is still popular. But the Inspector is very much J. B. Priestley's mouthpiece, when he insists,
"Public men, Mr Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges."
And his final message is crystal clear; we all have a responsibility for others.
"We do not live alone. We are members of one body."
December 20, 2018
*After finishing this play*
Me: (slides Priestley $20) So lets talk about that ending, huh?
Me: (slides Priestley $20) So lets talk about that ending, huh?
May 19, 2012
Re-read this last week and then realized I have never added it to my books. This is one of the most satisfyingly riveting plays i have ever read, seen in the theatre (three times), watched in film (Alastair Sims, goodness only knows how many times) listened to on the radio and now I have an audiobook version. Thus i can now luxuriate, whenever I feel the need to experience the wonderful schadenfreude of the gradual implosion of the horrendous edifice of arrogance which is the middle class Birling family.
The story begins with the self-satisfied gathering of this greedy, insensitive and culpably unaware family being visited unexpectedly by a policeman. Their arrogant high-handedness and dismissive bluster paints them deeper and deeper into a well deserved corner of embarrassment and guilt or, to use another metaphor, they climb higher and higher up a vilely self-satisfied ziggurat they think protects them from the lower orders and responsibility and yet, like some horribly twisted party game, we see the tower dismantled before our eyes . Each family member is confronted suddenly and brutally with their rotten involvement in the downward spiral of a young suicide's life. As the play goes on Priestley brilliantly puts his audience into two positions; in one we watch the horrible family weave rope which, as the play goes on, we realize is going to hang them out to dry and we rejoice in their discomfiture but at the same time he turns the spotlight on the reader/listener/observer.......are you, he says to us, any better? When opportunities arise to belittle or abuse or take advantage of someone weaker or challenging or someone who makes you feel uncomfortable what do you do ?
I love this play because it is a brilliant drama, has a wonderful building up of tension and approaching doom, has a startling ability to incite anger and sorrow and satisfaction but over it all I love it because it never ceases to challenge me. Be more aware of the effect your behaviour has, it tells me. Take opportunities to make things right, it challenges, because one day you may find it is all too late and horrible things will come home to roost.
The story begins with the self-satisfied gathering of this greedy, insensitive and culpably unaware family being visited unexpectedly by a policeman. Their arrogant high-handedness and dismissive bluster paints them deeper and deeper into a well deserved corner of embarrassment and guilt or, to use another metaphor, they climb higher and higher up a vilely self-satisfied ziggurat they think protects them from the lower orders and responsibility and yet, like some horribly twisted party game, we see the tower dismantled before our eyes . Each family member is confronted suddenly and brutally with their rotten involvement in the downward spiral of a young suicide's life. As the play goes on Priestley brilliantly puts his audience into two positions; in one we watch the horrible family weave rope which, as the play goes on, we realize is going to hang them out to dry and we rejoice in their discomfiture but at the same time he turns the spotlight on the reader/listener/observer.......are you, he says to us, any better? When opportunities arise to belittle or abuse or take advantage of someone weaker or challenging or someone who makes you feel uncomfortable what do you do ?
I love this play because it is a brilliant drama, has a wonderful building up of tension and approaching doom, has a startling ability to incite anger and sorrow and satisfaction but over it all I love it because it never ceases to challenge me. Be more aware of the effect your behaviour has, it tells me. Take opportunities to make things right, it challenges, because one day you may find it is all too late and horrible things will come home to roost.
May 18, 2021
TW// GCSE text (a ptsd alert)
I read this book like last year and I just need to have my say.
When Priestley dropped the line ‘in fire and blood and anguish’, you thought he was referring to Russian Revolution 2.0. I am here to tell you that is not the case. The polysyndetic line foreshadows the struggles of year 11 children, as ‘fire’ connotes bonfires and burning books (or plays). ‘Blood’ is a metaphor for pain and war, reminiscent of the inner battle any child reading the play has. It was a tricky one and by the time Eva changed to Mrs Birling I was ready to follow in her footsteps, but it’s fun for all the family I promise. Priestley, take responsibility for your dreadful creation. I kinda liked it though.
I read this book like last year and I just need to have my say.
When Priestley dropped the line ‘in fire and blood and anguish’, you thought he was referring to Russian Revolution 2.0. I am here to tell you that is not the case. The polysyndetic line foreshadows the struggles of year 11 children, as ‘fire’ connotes bonfires and burning books (or plays). ‘Blood’ is a metaphor for pain and war, reminiscent of the inner battle any child reading the play has. It was a tricky one and by the time Eva changed to Mrs Birling I was ready to follow in her footsteps, but it’s fun for all the family I promise. Priestley, take responsibility for your dreadful creation. I kinda liked it though.
November 6, 2021
If it were an Agatha Christie, it'd sort of be Orient Express crossed with Roger Ackroyd. Perhaps she bet Priestley that those two plots couldn't be combined?
______________________
[Update, Nov 6 2021]
There's an interesting example of this kind of reasoning currently playing out in Australia. At the moment, the situation is that two states, New South Wales and Victoria, have failed to contain Delta. The other states have done fine. Now, however, there's a proposal to open interstate borders.
Western Australia, right now with zero covid cases, is being extremely cautious. They are going to wait until 90% of the 12+ population is double-vaccinated, a target they may not reach until February 2022. But South Australia, also with zero covid cases, has decided to open up on Nov 23 2021, when vaccination levels look like they'll be a bit less than 80% of the 16+ population, i.e. considerably lower than WA's target.
The official modelling, which experience tells us is almost certainly too optimistic, is that this will result in a one-in-four chance of a Delta outbreak in South Australia, which will kill between 7 and 50 people. I haven't seen modelling for what would happen if SA used WA's more conservative strategy, but clearly the prediction is that you'd have fewer deaths. So the SA government is going ahead with a plan that they expect will kill people.
The interesting thing, it occurred to me, is that they would never be able to do this if they knew which people were going to die. That would be reckless endangerment at best and murder at worst. But since the identities of the victims are impossible to predict, it's considered acceptable.
You can definitely see Priestly's point here.
______________________
[Update, Nov 6 2021]
There's an interesting example of this kind of reasoning currently playing out in Australia. At the moment, the situation is that two states, New South Wales and Victoria, have failed to contain Delta. The other states have done fine. Now, however, there's a proposal to open interstate borders.
Western Australia, right now with zero covid cases, is being extremely cautious. They are going to wait until 90% of the 12+ population is double-vaccinated, a target they may not reach until February 2022. But South Australia, also with zero covid cases, has decided to open up on Nov 23 2021, when vaccination levels look like they'll be a bit less than 80% of the 16+ population, i.e. considerably lower than WA's target.
The official modelling, which experience tells us is almost certainly too optimistic, is that this will result in a one-in-four chance of a Delta outbreak in South Australia, which will kill between 7 and 50 people. I haven't seen modelling for what would happen if SA used WA's more conservative strategy, but clearly the prediction is that you'd have fewer deaths. So the SA government is going ahead with a plan that they expect will kill people.
The interesting thing, it occurred to me, is that they would never be able to do this if they knew which people were going to die. That would be reckless endangerment at best and murder at worst. But since the identities of the victims are impossible to predict, it's considered acceptable.
You can definitely see Priestly's point here.
August 27, 2023
My second time reading and my second 5 stars for this heartrending and thought provoking story.
They are having a nice little family celebration when the doorbell rings.
An inspector has called informing them that a young woman has died in agony in result of drinking disinfectant.
No it wasn’t an accident and it wasn’t murder.
She wanted to end her life. She felt she couldn’t go on any longer.
At first the family denies knowing the woman, but as the story unravels we realize that is not the case.
Why did the young woman commit suicide and why did an inspector come calling at the home of a respectable family?
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, 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. 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.
They are having a nice little family celebration when the doorbell rings.
An inspector has called informing them that a young woman has died in agony in result of drinking disinfectant.
No it wasn’t an accident and it wasn’t murder.
She wanted to end her life. She felt she couldn’t go on any longer.
At first the family denies knowing the woman, but as the story unravels we realize that is not the case.
Why did the young woman commit suicide and why did an inspector come calling at the home of a respectable family?
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, 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. 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.
May 27, 2023
That was such a mind f read. I finished it in an hour and was so surprised and shocked towards the end. I hated Mr and Mrs Birlings so much because you could tell they didn’t even care! AND GOSH THAT PLOT TWIST IN THE END WHEN THE INFIRMARY RINGS AND SAYS THAT A GIRL HAS COME IN AND UNALIVED HERSELF!!!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 14, 2015
The proscenium stage has a romance of its own. You, the spectator, is actually a Peeping Tom, staring into the lives of total strangers through the invisible fourth wall. And what lives! For on the stage, time and space are usually compressed or telescoped according to the whims and fancies of the playwright. Passions are exaggerated on purpose, and action proceeds at an unbelievable pace; all the while retaining the semblance of normality (this is not essential for an arena stage, where the unreality of the situation is accepted by the audience from the start). The denouement is usually explosive, and you leave the theatre emotionally drained.
J. B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls uses the advantages (and limitations) of the proscenium stage to the maximum extent possible: to produce a play which is a very good mystery (in the Agatha Christie tradition), a social statement (very much like Ibsen) and a final twist which takes it into the realm of fantasy. I read the play, then watched the BBC adaptation… you have to see it performed to appreciate the power packed into ninety minutes of stage-time.
***
The depth of the play is truly amazing. Only when we encounter the conversation again can we understand its depth, and how cleverly it is constructed. The story takes off smoothly from a drawing room farce to a darkly philosophical tragicomedy, which is sure to draw the viewers into the middle of it without them noticing: and to leave them drained at the end.
Highly recommended.
J. B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls uses the advantages (and limitations) of the proscenium stage to the maximum extent possible: to produce a play which is a very good mystery (in the Agatha Christie tradition), a social statement (very much like Ibsen) and a final twist which takes it into the realm of fantasy. I read the play, then watched the BBC adaptation… you have to see it performed to appreciate the power packed into ninety minutes of stage-time.
***
The depth of the play is truly amazing. Only when we encounter the conversation again can we understand its depth, and how cleverly it is constructed. The story takes off smoothly from a drawing room farce to a darkly philosophical tragicomedy, which is sure to draw the viewers into the middle of it without them noticing: and to leave them drained at the end.
Highly recommended.
September 17, 2015
Includes spoilers.
This is such an awful play. I'm going to try and make something coherent out of this rant, and I'm sorry if it's long-winded, but I guarantee you that it will be more interesting than the entirety of all three acts.
Ok, so let's start.
The play opens up in an upper class English household in 1912. Just in case you couldn't tell, Priestly drops hints about it for the entire scene, including references to the titanic - which, incidentally, hasn't sunk yet - of course, Birling still knows enough detail about it to grace his family with, and a reference to the great war leaves a sort of horrendously botched attempt at exposition (trust me, I'm only just getting started). Both the titanic and the war are then dismissed by Birling, just in case we can't see Priestly's plastering of his overstated character. It's so lazy and unsubtle, like, are you even trying here? Did you even think about what Birling was going to say before you opened his mouth?
Blah blah blah, everyone is a caricature of themselves, it's obvious the fiance is cheating on Shelia from page 3, then after all this bumbling around with the characters saying nothing useful to the plot at all, the inspector arrives.
Couldn't the play just have started here?
Blah blah blah, more exposition, the young female character is the reasonably morally apt family member and yet still manages to be the most un-feminist character ever - and then we finally start getting into the actual story. And let me be perfectly clear when I say that Priestly holds back nothing. You won't miss ANYTHING about the plot, but you also won't find it out on your own. It'll just be presented to you, straight up and down style.
And then we have Eric, who started out as the only reasonably amusing character and turned out to be a rapist. Good one, Priestly. Try on all the cliches you want.
Also: Why do all the characters react the same way to Eva's death? Why is no-one concerned at the end by the strange and completely unexplained inspector's appearance in the first place? Really? Probably because, like everything else in the play, Priestly only thought about it for around thirty seconds without considering development, much like the entire plot layout or any of the characters.
Practically, it's pretty badly set out, too. Priestly obviously has never studied the work of Chekhov, otherwise he would know that if you have to tell the audience how a character says a line, the line isn't good enough. I mean, come on! Really!
My question is: What is the point of this play? Is there any conclusion reached that we couldn't have gleamed from the first one-dimensional rant from Birling about how great capitalism is? *chortle chortle* Like, we all feel the same way about the characters. We all disagree with their stance on life (which is never even vaguely concealed at all), so unless they were going to do something dramatic, why have the play take place at all?
*sips drink*
In conclusion: This play is really bad. Priestly seems to write with a paint-roller- indelicately, and probably should have thought the play through before just throwing all of it over the page. Don't read this play. If you value good characters, a well developed plot and some semblance of closure or well timed endings to your literature, just avoid this play. Don't waste your life on it.
I feel for the poor souls who have to study this pile of poop at GCSE or A-Level, I really do.
This is such an awful play. I'm going to try and make something coherent out of this rant, and I'm sorry if it's long-winded, but I guarantee you that it will be more interesting than the entirety of all three acts.
Ok, so let's start.
The play opens up in an upper class English household in 1912. Just in case you couldn't tell, Priestly drops hints about it for the entire scene, including references to the titanic - which, incidentally, hasn't sunk yet - of course, Birling still knows enough detail about it to grace his family with, and a reference to the great war leaves a sort of horrendously botched attempt at exposition (trust me, I'm only just getting started). Both the titanic and the war are then dismissed by Birling, just in case we can't see Priestly's plastering of his overstated character. It's so lazy and unsubtle, like, are you even trying here? Did you even think about what Birling was going to say before you opened his mouth?
Blah blah blah, everyone is a caricature of themselves, it's obvious the fiance is cheating on Shelia from page 3, then after all this bumbling around with the characters saying nothing useful to the plot at all, the inspector arrives.
Couldn't the play just have started here?
Blah blah blah, more exposition, the young female character is the reasonably morally apt family member and yet still manages to be the most un-feminist character ever - and then we finally start getting into the actual story. And let me be perfectly clear when I say that Priestly holds back nothing. You won't miss ANYTHING about the plot, but you also won't find it out on your own. It'll just be presented to you, straight up and down style.
And then we have Eric, who started out as the only reasonably amusing character and turned out to be a rapist. Good one, Priestly. Try on all the cliches you want.
Also: Why do all the characters react the same way to Eva's death? Why is no-one concerned at the end by the strange and completely unexplained inspector's appearance in the first place? Really? Probably because, like everything else in the play, Priestly only thought about it for around thirty seconds without considering development, much like the entire plot layout or any of the characters.
Practically, it's pretty badly set out, too. Priestly obviously has never studied the work of Chekhov, otherwise he would know that if you have to tell the audience how a character says a line, the line isn't good enough. I mean, come on! Really!
My question is: What is the point of this play? Is there any conclusion reached that we couldn't have gleamed from the first one-dimensional rant from Birling about how great capitalism is? *chortle chortle* Like, we all feel the same way about the characters. We all disagree with their stance on life (which is never even vaguely concealed at all), so unless they were going to do something dramatic, why have the play take place at all?
*sips drink*
In conclusion: This play is really bad. Priestly seems to write with a paint-roller- indelicately, and probably should have thought the play through before just throwing all of it over the page. Don't read this play. If you value good characters, a well developed plot and some semblance of closure or well timed endings to your literature, just avoid this play. Don't waste your life on it.
I feel for the poor souls who have to study this pile of poop at GCSE or A-Level, I really do.
April 24, 2017
"An Inspector Calls" has themes of responsibility, class structure, and social duty. Set in 1912, Arthur Birling, a wealthy factory owner, is celebrating his daughter's engagement to the son of another industrialist. The celebration is interrupted by Inspector Goole who is conducting an investigation of the suicide of a working class woman. As the Inspector questions the family members in the dining room, it becomes obvious that each person had a connection to the young woman and had treated her badly. A chain of events led to her despair. The drama is thought-provoking with interesting psychological profiles and a strong moral message. Written soon after the conclusion of World War II in 1945, during a difficult economic time in Great Britain, it also has political and social interpretations.
The play has been performed on stage, adapted to film, and performed on radio and television. It is also a popular text for study in British schools.
The play has been performed on stage, adapted to film, and performed on radio and television. It is also a popular text for study in British schools.
April 27, 2022
as far as gcse text go i'd say this is a winner🗣
July 17, 2012
With its tightly wound and didactic plot 'An Inspector Calls' is among the finer examples of the play world. While not as fanciful or elaborate as some of the greatest works by masters such as Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde in his style Priestly manages to pull off what he must. It is in fact the simplicity of his work that creates such an appeal, because it touches more at the heart of humanity and society.
The narrative of the play delves around a mysterious Inspector who interrupts the celebration of a respectable British family. It turns out he's arrived to question the family about a girl who just committed suicide and has reason to believe certain family members may know why she did so. What happens next is unbelievably clever and at the same time highly improbable. Yet the point of the play is revealed to be a masterpiece in causing the audience to reflect upon how their interactions with fellow humans could have serious repercussions.
I was astounded by this play in a positive way. It had a good plot, some potent messages and a nice little twist in the end designed to haunt the audience after the curtain descends. Still when compared to works such as The Crucible it came up a little short. It lacks the flowery, elegant style of similar plays preferring to be neater and more clinical. Which at times can cause characters to appear almost robotic and stiff. No doubt when performed this play would rise to another level.
I fully encourage that anyone interested in plays and classics read this. Or at the least watch a play or televised version. It truly is worth sinking your teeth into. If not for the tight, clever and thought-provoking plot instead enjoy it for the very fact that it will leave you with perplexing question. And any work which haunts the reader afterward in a pleasant way deserves to be read and enjoyed in futures to come.
The narrative of the play delves around a mysterious Inspector who interrupts the celebration of a respectable British family. It turns out he's arrived to question the family about a girl who just committed suicide and has reason to believe certain family members may know why she did so. What happens next is unbelievably clever and at the same time highly improbable. Yet the point of the play is revealed to be a masterpiece in causing the audience to reflect upon how their interactions with fellow humans could have serious repercussions.
I was astounded by this play in a positive way. It had a good plot, some potent messages and a nice little twist in the end designed to haunt the audience after the curtain descends. Still when compared to works such as The Crucible it came up a little short. It lacks the flowery, elegant style of similar plays preferring to be neater and more clinical. Which at times can cause characters to appear almost robotic and stiff. No doubt when performed this play would rise to another level.
I fully encourage that anyone interested in plays and classics read this. Or at the least watch a play or televised version. It truly is worth sinking your teeth into. If not for the tight, clever and thought-provoking plot instead enjoy it for the very fact that it will leave you with perplexing question. And any work which haunts the reader afterward in a pleasant way deserves to be read and enjoyed in futures to come.
Read
April 9, 2021Inspektor... je klasičan moralitet u savremenom (tada) ruhu: pojava stranca obične pojave ali očigledno natprirodnog karaktera unosi nemir u malo porodično okupljanje i primorava sve njegove učesnike da se suoče sa svojim gresima i svojom pravom prirodom. Inspektor Gul (dobro, pre sedamdesetak godina ovo ime nije bilo toliko prozirno ni, da se ne lažemo, smešno) primorava okupljene bogataše da se suoče sa vlastitim udelom krivice u samoubistvu nesrećne devojke. Pristli je bio toliko popularan a njegov uticaj na savremeno pozorište (a tek televizijsku dramaturgiju) tako snažan da danas, paradoksalno, njegovi komadi deluju sasvim prevaziđeno jer smo svaki koncept i preokret već videli po sto puta.
Read
November 8, 2020I would have enjoyed this 100% more if it was 1) lengthier in order to create some attachment to the characters 2) the back of my copy of the play didn’t outline the entire plot of the play, spoilers and all.
January 26, 2016
Boom! MIND BLOWN!!! Seriously it's just so good how it gets revealed in the end.
January 5, 2023
For me it would probs be a 3.5 but I'm being nice so I'll give it a 4.
I feel like I have a lot to say about this book.
The only reason I read it in the first place is because of schools and I never like any school books because they're always boring.
I didnt actually mind this though because I feel like the characters, the storyline, and the main message was there. The only thing I have to say is I hated the ending. This could've been such a good book but the ending ruined it for me. Like who leaves books on cliffhangers with so many obvious questions left?
I feel like I have a lot to say about this book.
The only reason I read it in the first place is because of schools and I never like any school books because they're always boring.
I didnt actually mind this though because I feel like the characters, the storyline, and the main message was there. The only thing I have to say is I hated the ending. This could've been such a good book but the ending ruined it for me. Like who leaves books on cliffhangers with so many obvious questions left?
February 11, 2024
This is an exceptional play, which I am pleased to now be able to listen to whenever I like! Excellent performances by the cast of familiar players.
March 17, 2025
The GCSE class that I support in at work finally finished this! I've got to say I really enjoyed it. It is written in fantastic prose and explores some interesting themes. We took the students to watch the play in live action and it was fabulous.
March 26, 2017
نمرة ترجمة خوانین شیرازی و حروفچینی و صفحه بندی نشر افکار منفی پنجاه بود، ولی خود متن پریستلی انقدر خوبه که می تونم توصیه کنم دل قوی دارید و با ارادة آهنین از دست اندازهای متن فارسی عبور کنید و نمایشنامه ای لذت بخش و تأمل برانگیز بخونید. نشر افکار را یارای سایه انداختن بر نبوغ پریستلی نیست! اگر به متن انگلیسی دسترسی داشته باشید هم که چه بهتر. در اون صورت از نمایشنامة پیچ خطرناک
Dangerous corner
پریستلی هم غافل نمونید
Dangerous corner
پریستلی هم غافل نمونید
September 19, 2022
i reread this play frequently, just to see if my opinion ever changes.. i’m still convinced that mr inspector does not exist
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 30, 2018
Κάθε ανθρώπου ο θάνατος εμένα λιγοστεύει, γιατί εγώ είμαι δεμένος με την ανθρωπότητα.
Γι'αυτό ποτέ μη στείλεις να σου πουν για ποιον έρχεται ο επιθεωρητής.
Για σένα έρχεται.
Γι'αυτό ποτέ μη στείλεις να σου πουν για ποιον έρχεται ο επιθεωρητής.
Για σένα έρχεται.
Currently reading
September 10, 2025uk english lit type shii 🔥
March 26, 2017
One of the best crime detective story ever written, period.
The story crafting in this play has got to be one of best ever, it had such an intense effect on me. The thrill and ominous tension had me on the edge of the seat even though I've already seen the 2015 TV movie adaptation. It speaks volumes about the play itself.
I love books and movies set in confined space and where there is a lot of dialogue between characters. This play is set in a single room, a family is celebrating an engagement and an inspector calls at their door. That's all you need to know to get into the book.
The characters themselves are an achievement of their own. This play will set the reader thinking, introspecting and retrospecting their lives. In a world where the human society is so closely connected such as this, is it not far from truth to say that our every action has consequences that ripple through not just one's own life but through every life connected to it, no matter by how fine a thread?
This book is sort of a detective story that has an underlying structure that parallels the concept of the butterfly effect, or the chaos theory. It is quite a fascinating subject to think and research about.
I hope more people read this play, it is such an incredible piece of work. Do yourself a favor and listen to BBC radio's dramatised version of it. After that I recommend you to watch the TV movie of the same name starring David Thewlis(Professor Lupin in Harry Potter), the adaptation was awesome.
The story crafting in this play has got to be one of best ever, it had such an intense effect on me. The thrill and ominous tension had me on the edge of the seat even though I've already seen the 2015 TV movie adaptation. It speaks volumes about the play itself.
I love books and movies set in confined space and where there is a lot of dialogue between characters. This play is set in a single room, a family is celebrating an engagement and an inspector calls at their door. That's all you need to know to get into the book.
The characters themselves are an achievement of their own. This play will set the reader thinking, introspecting and retrospecting their lives. In a world where the human society is so closely connected such as this, is it not far from truth to say that our every action has consequences that ripple through not just one's own life but through every life connected to it, no matter by how fine a thread?
This book is sort of a detective story that has an underlying structure that parallels the concept of the butterfly effect, or the chaos theory. It is quite a fascinating subject to think and research about.
I hope more people read this play, it is such an incredible piece of work. Do yourself a favor and listen to BBC radio's dramatised version of it. After that I recommend you to watch the TV movie of the same name starring David Thewlis(Professor Lupin in Harry Potter), the adaptation was awesome.
July 30, 2020
I'm rereading all the books I've loved from my school days at the moment. This book is still studied in schools I think and I'm not surprised as there's so much discussion to come from it. A lot of questions you can ask yourself, about yourself and how you treat others. It's very apt in this modern day too which is why I think it's stood the test of time.
An inspector arrives unannounced at a society house. A girl has committed suicide and he talks to the family one by one, but in the same claustrophobic room, to find out what happened to her and why. Oh when the story unravels and we see how each member of the family have secrets about this girl to spill, then this is like watching lambs to the slaughter. It will also make you think about yourself and how you interact in the world. Every action has consequences - seeing these characters interactions crash into each other, smack them in the face and then pull the rug from under the only one standing, it's delicious to see.
That ending! I still remember how thrilled I was to write about this in my GSCE exam. I could waffle on about this for ages (which was good then as it got my word count up hehe)
Recommended - (book, stage play, two TV adaptations) I've read and seen them all.
An inspector arrives unannounced at a society house. A girl has committed suicide and he talks to the family one by one, but in the same claustrophobic room, to find out what happened to her and why. Oh when the story unravels and we see how each member of the family have secrets about this girl to spill, then this is like watching lambs to the slaughter. It will also make you think about yourself and how you interact in the world. Every action has consequences - seeing these characters interactions crash into each other, smack them in the face and then pull the rug from under the only one standing, it's delicious to see.
That ending! I still remember how thrilled I was to write about this in my GSCE exam. I could waffle on about this for ages (which was good then as it got my word count up hehe)
Recommended - (book, stage play, two TV adaptations) I've read and seen them all.
July 4, 2025
best gcse book ever, argue with the wall 😤
April 20, 2008
Searching desperately for a fall play to direct, I was handed this brilliant bit of writing, and fell hard and fast.
It's like when you first see a television show that immediatly hooks you. Taut, concise writing that holds you in the moment and a twisting plot line that leaves you guessing until the very end.
It's shocking that this book is largely ignored by Americans (witness the fact that only a few more than 50 people have reviewed it here on "goodreads"). Perhaps the setting and tone lend it to commonwealth readers more than we ex-colonials. But the themes of hubris, responsibility and the place of the individual within society are critical to modern Americans, just as they were to postwar Brits, just as they were to the aristocracy at the beginning of the 20th century.
Directing the recent production gave me great respect for Priestly, the humor, the sincerity, the ingeneous weaving of story lines held me, an international cast, and a pack of high school students who actually stormed into the final showing (some to watch it for a third time). Would that it was all my doing...it was Priestly's I just went along for the ride.
It's like when you first see a television show that immediatly hooks you. Taut, concise writing that holds you in the moment and a twisting plot line that leaves you guessing until the very end.
It's shocking that this book is largely ignored by Americans (witness the fact that only a few more than 50 people have reviewed it here on "goodreads"). Perhaps the setting and tone lend it to commonwealth readers more than we ex-colonials. But the themes of hubris, responsibility and the place of the individual within society are critical to modern Americans, just as they were to postwar Brits, just as they were to the aristocracy at the beginning of the 20th century.
Directing the recent production gave me great respect for Priestly, the humor, the sincerity, the ingeneous weaving of story lines held me, an international cast, and a pack of high school students who actually stormed into the final showing (some to watch it for a third time). Would that it was all my doing...it was Priestly's I just went along for the ride.
May 16, 2021
I’m studying this for my GCSE, so you’d think I’d hate it. However, I actually really enjoy it, Priestly is a genius and the things that he covers in this play is amazing. I hate almost all of the characters, but that is because of the characteristics that Priestly wants to portray, so over all it’s a wonderful play, that is very cleverly written! I really enjoy reading it and hope that I can go and watch it in a theatre in the future!
May 20, 2017
Excellent supernatural socialist morality play.
June 20, 2015
so good, best book i studied for english tbh
July 19, 2021
WHAT-
WHAT JUST-
WHAT
WHAT JUST-
WHAT
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,495 reviews