2. Sample Response (Top Grade)
Question:
How does Priestley present the generational divide in An Inspector Calls?
Introduction
J.B. Priestley wrote An Inspector Calls in 1945 to critique Edwardian complacency and to advocate post-war social reform. Central to his message is the contrast between the older Birlings—rigid, self-serving, and dismissive of others—and the younger Sheila and Eric, who show remorse and a capacity to learn. Through sharply contrasting character reactions, language choices, and the play’s structure, Priestley dramatizes a clear generational chasm: the old cling to selfish individualism, while the young embody hope and social responsibility.
Paragraph 1: Sheila and Arthur Birling
Sheila Birling’s immediate response to the Inspector’s revelations starkly contrasts with her father’s arrogance. Upon learning of her part in Eva Smith’s downfall, Sheila exclaims, “I know I’m to blame—and I’m desperately sorry” (Act 1). The repetition of “I” and the adverb “desperately” emphasize her genuine guilt and willingness to change. In direct opposition, Arthur Birling insists, “I can’t accept any responsibility” (Act 2), using the modal verb “can’t” to erect an absolute barrier against guilt. Furthermore, his earlier “unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable” assertion about the Titanic (Act 1) serves as dramatic irony, underscoring his complacent worldview. Priestley uses Sheila’s contrite language and Birling’s defensive register to embody youth’s openness to self-examination versus age’s blind hubris.
Paragraph 2: Eric and Sybil Birling
Eric’s emotional confession deepens this divide. He admits, “The fact remains that I did what I did” (Act 3), acknowledging personal fault with the plain declarative “I did.” This candour mirrors Sheila’s contrition and positions Eric alongside the younger generation’s moral awakening. By contrast, Sybil Birling dismisses Eva as “that girl” of “a lower class” and declares, “I did nothing I’m ashamed of” (Act 2). Her measured, aristocratic tone and socially divisive phrase “lower class” reveal her refusal to see Eva Smith’s shared humanity. Through Eric’s blunt honesty and Sybil’s cold denials, Priestley illustrates how only the young are capable of transcending inherited prejudices.
Paragraph 3: Inspector’s Rhetoric and Structure
Inspector Goole’s speeches bridge generations, yet always fall on different ears. He delivers his moral injunction—“We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other” (Act 3)—in inclusive plural pronouns to appeal to all characters. His later warning, “If men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish,” evokes the horrors of two world wars, speaking directly to post-war audiences. The play’s cyclical structure—ending with the telephone ringing as it began—suggests that the older generation may never heed these lessons, whereas the younger characters (Sheila’s tears, Eric’s shame) stand poised to answer the call to change. Thus, Priestley uses both figures of speech and dramatic form to entrench the generational divide and to offer the young as society’s best hope.
Conclusion
Priestley presents a stark generational divide in An Inspector Calls: the older Birlings remain unyielding, self-justifying, and emblematic of Edwardian arrogance, while Sheila and Eric embody conscience, empathy, and the potential for progress. Through contrasting responses, authoritative rhetoric, and a cyclical dramatic structure, Priestley argues that social responsibility lies with the young—and that only they can lead society toward a more compassionate future.
🏆 Why This Is a Strong Response
| Aspect | Strength |
| AO1 (Ideas) | Sharp contrast of generations, sustained focus on ‘divide.’ |
| AO2 (Language & Structure) | Detailed analysis of pronouns, modals, repetition, dramatic irony, and cyclical form. |
| AO3 (Context) | Links Inspector’s warnings to WWI/II, post-war hopes, Edwardian social attitudes. |
| Quotes | Well-embedded, concise, and analytical. |
| Critical Insight | Recognizes the play’s structure as reinforcing generational themes and Priestley’s reformist agenda. |