An Inspector Calls-Plot Summary
Throughout the investigation taking place in AIC, Priestley alludes to Inspector Goole being a higher power, or possibly even God himself, through his speeches; his manner of speaking; and his perceived omniscience. His investigation follows a chronological order, addressing each of the family members only when it progresses the story of Eva Smith’s life. The explanation he gives for his wealth of knowledge is a diary left by the deceased girl, however, in the final, albeit short, phone call that closes the play there is no mention of a diary, leaving the audience to wonder whether or not the diary actually existed. Upon the exit of Gerald, Sheila makes a comment on how he never saw the photograph of Eva Smith to which the Inspector replies
…show more content…
Eliot’s The Cocktail party is similar to Priestley’s inspector in that he represents a character with an, at first, mysterious knowledge of the situation he has entered without revealing, to the audience at least, how exactly he has come across this wisdom.
He is not clearly omniscient, nor is there any suggestion that he is a supernatural presence, admittedly, it is not always clear how he knows so much at times, he also does not allude to knowing: “I know quite enough about you for the moment” (Eliot 2014, p. 132) he says to celia during her session with him in his office. Eliot also draws on the symbolic order of an occupation that “society has instituted for hearing confession (priests, doctors, therapists)”(Visker 2010, p. 201), each character comes to Dr. Reilly in turn to confess secrets and emotions to him and seek his guidance to better themselves or to ‘repent’, Celia herself confesses to have paid him a visit “in desperation” (Eliot 2014, p. 131). He gives them the freewill to make their final decisions, however, he also lets them know that their actions and choices have consequences that affect, not only themselves, but also those around them: “Neither way is better. Both ways are necessary. It is also necessary to make a choice between them” (Eliot 2014, p. 141). Eliot’s choice to include a character to emulate God is comparable to Priestley’s in that they have the same intention: to deliver his assessment of the current society of the late 1940’s through religious analogy for the audience to
Eliot’s The Cocktail party is similar to Priestley’s inspector in that he represents a character with an, at first, mysterious knowledge of the situation he has entered without revealing, to the audience at least, how exactly he has come across this wisdom.
He is not clearly omniscient, nor is there any suggestion that he is a supernatural presence, admittedly, it is not always clear how he knows so much at times, he also does not allude to knowing: “I know quite enough about you for the moment” (Eliot 2014, p. 132) he says to celia during her session with him in his office. Eliot also draws on the symbolic order of an occupation that “society has instituted for hearing confession (priests, doctors, therapists)”(Visker 2010, p. 201), each character comes to Dr. Reilly in turn to confess secrets and emotions to him and seek his guidance to better themselves or to ‘repent’, Celia herself confesses to have paid him a visit “in desperation” (Eliot 2014, p. 131). He gives them the freewill to make their final decisions, however, he also lets them know that their actions and choices have consequences that affect, not only themselves, but also those around them: “Neither way is better. Both ways are necessary. It is also necessary to make a choice between them” (Eliot 2014, p. 141). Eliot’s choice to include a character to emulate God is comparable to Priestley’s in that they have the same intention: to deliver his assessment of the current society of the late 1940’s through religious analogy for the audience to