time and consequences Flashcards
overview
Priestley uses time and consequences in An Inspector Calls to warn that society must change. The older Birlings’ refusal to accept responsibility shows how stubbornness leads to disaster, while the younger generation’s growth offers hope. The Inspector’s urgent investigation mirrors history’s inevitable punishment for selfishness - change now or face the consequences.
“I was sorry for her”
When Gerald is compelled to confess his affair with Daisy Renton in front of Sheila and her family, Priestley exposes how time amplifies consequences. Gerald’s halting admission “I was sorry for her” uses the past tense, suggesting he views his exploitation as a closed chapter – but the public nature of his confession drags his private sin into the open, proving consequences can’t be buried. The dramatic irony is crushing: while Gerald hopes Sheila might forgive him the audience sees his failed evasion. His euphemistic language (“helping her”) collapses under the Inspector’s scrutiny, mirroring how the upper classes’ lies unravel when forced to face social responsibility. Priestley times this revelation strategically – it comes just as Mrs. Birling is condemning the “drunken young man” (unaware it’s Eric), showing how consequences accelerate when truth surfaces.
“The Germans don’t want war. Nobody wants war… I say there isn’t a chance of war”
In the opening act of An Inspector Calls, Priestley uses the character of Mr Birling to explore the theme of time and consequences through dramatic irony. When Birling confidently states, “The Germans don’t want war. Nobody wants war… I say there isn’t a chance of war” the audience—aware of the impending World Wars—immediately recognises his ignorance. The use of definitive language (“isn’t a chance”) exposes Birling’s arrogance, while the dramatic irony forces the audience to question his authority. Priestley deliberately sets the play in 1912 to highlight how characters like Birling are blind to the consequences of their actions, both politically and socially. The audience understands that Birling’s refusal to acknowledge the possibility of war mirrors his refusal to take responsibility for Eva Smith’s death later in the play, reinforcing Priestley’s critique of capitalist complacency.
“Still, I can’t accept any responsibility. If we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody we’d had anything to do with, it would be very awkward, wouldn’t it?”
One key moment in Act One where Priestley examines the theme of consequences is when Mr Birling dismissively says, “Still, I can’t accept any responsibility. If we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody we’d had anything to do with, it would be very awkward, wouldn’t it?” The rhetorical question (“wouldn’t it?”) reveals Birling’s selfish mindset—he sees responsibility as an inconvenience rather than a moral duty. The conditional language (“if we were all responsible”) highlights his refusal to acknowledge his role in Eva Smith’s suffering, reinforcing his capitalist individualism. Priestley uses Birling’s attitude to critique the upper-class belief that consequences can be ignored if they don’t directly affect them. The adjective “awkward” is particularly telling—it reduces human suffering to a mere social discomfort, exposing Birling’s lack of empathy.
“But I accept no blame”
Mrs. Birling’s defiant statement “But I accept no blame” is a pivotal moment in Act 2 that exposes her willful ignorance of consequences and her refusal to acknowledge the passage of time. The abrupt, categorical tone—created by the short, simple sentence structure—reflects her upper-class arrogance, as if she believes she can simply decide not to be accountable. The conjunction “But” at the start dismisses the Inspector’s accusations outright, reinforcing her stubborn resistance to change. Priestley uses this moment to highlight the generational divide in attitudes toward responsibility. While Sheila and Eric begin to grapple with guilt, Mrs. Birling clings to the past, assuming her social status shields her from consequences. The present-tense verb “accept” is especially telling—she frames blame as a choice rather than an inevitable result of her actions. This mirrors the moral blindness of the pre-war elite, who believed they could ignore societal problems without repercussions. The dramatic irony is brutal: the audience knows her refusal to admit fault directly leads to Eric’s exposure moments later. Her attempt to control the narrative (“I accept no blame”) backfires catastrophically, proving that time cannot be reversed—consequences will catch up with her.
“each of you helped to kill her”
The Inspector’s damning line “each of you helped to kill her” brutally exposes the inescapable consequences of the Birlings’ actions. The collective pronoun “each” leaves no room for evasion - Priestley makes it clear that responsibility isn’t optional, dismantling the family’s attempts to shift blame individually, forcing all the characters and audience to confront their complicity. Time becomes crucial here - the present-perfect tense (“helped”) shows how past actions have ongoing consequences, something the Birlings desperately try to deny. Their belief that Eva’s death is “over” (as Gerald insists) is shattered by the Inspector’s inescapable present-tense morality - their crimes can’t be buried in the past. Priestley’s socialist warning comes through in the violent metaphor - by saying they “killed” her rather than just “fired” or “dismissed” her, he escalates the moral stakes. For the 1945 audience rebuilding after war, this would resonate as a cautionary tale about the consequences of ignoring social responsibility when there was still time to act.
“If men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.”
The Inspector’s warning – “If men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.” (Act 3) – is one of the most chilling moments in the play, directly linking the Birlings’ actions to catastrophic future consequences. The triadic structure of “fire, blood and anguish” creates a visceral, almost biblical image of suffering, making the punishment feel inevitable and severe. Each word escalates in intensity, mimicking how small, selfish choices (like the Birlings’) accumulate over time into society-wide destruction. The conditional “if” suggests there’s still a chance to change, but the future tense (“will be taught”) implies that if people refuse, consequences are absolutely guaranteed—a warning that would have hit hard for a 1945 audience who had lived through two world wars. The violent imagery isn’t just metaphorical; it foreshadows the literal “fire and blood” of the wars and revolutions that followed 1912, showing how Priestley uses dramatic irony to make the Birlings’ ignorance seem even more damning. The Inspector cuts through the family’s petty arguments to deliver a universal truth: time is running out, and if society doesn’t learn collective responsibility, history will force the lesson through suffering. The repetition of “and” makes the suffering feel endless, hammering home that consequences cannot be escaped once the damage is done.
conclusion
In conclusion, Priestley uses the theme of time and consequences to show how the Birlings’ selfishness leads to inevitable suffering. The Inspector acts as a warning—if society doesn’t change now, the future will bring destruction. While the younger generation shows hope, the older characters’ refusal to learn means they’re trapped by their past, proving that time doesn’t forgive ignorance. Ultimately, the play is a wake-up call: consequences always catch up with you.
