LITERATURE IN ENGLISH (SPM 2010) / NOTES!!!
AN INSPECTOR CALLS : SUMMARY
One evening in the spring of 1912, the Birlings are celebrating their daughter Sheila’s engagement to Gerald Croft, who is also present. Husband and wife Arthur and Sybil Birling, along with their son Eric, are pleased with themselves. Birling toasts the happy couple, and Gerald presents Sheila with a ring which absolutely delights her.
Birling makes a lengthy speech, not only congratulating Gerald and Sheila, but also commenting on the state of the nation. He predicts prosperity, particularly referring to the example of the “unsinkable” Titanic, which set sail the week earlier. Birling styles himself as a “hard-headed man of business.”
The women leave the room, and Eric follows them. Birling and Gerald discuss the fact that Gerald might have “done better for [himself] socially”: Sheila is Gerald’s social inferior. Birling confides to Gerald that he is in the running for a knighthood in the next Honors List. When Eric returns, Birling continues giving advice, and he is passionately announcing his “every man for himself” worldview when the doorbell rings.
It is an Inspector, who refuses a drink from Birling. Birling is surprised, as an ex-Lord Mayor and an alderman, that he has never seen the Inspector before, though he knows the Brumley police force pretty well. The Inspector explains that he is here to investigate the death of a girl who died two hours ago in the Infirmary after committing suicide by drinking disinfectant. Her name was Eva Smith, and the Inspector brings with him a photograph, which he shows to Birling—but not to anyone else.
It is revealed that Eva Smith worked in Birling’s works, from which she was dismissed after being a ringleader in an unsuccessful strike to demand better pay for Birling’s workers. The Inspector outlines that “a chain of events” might be responsible for the girl’s death, and—for the rest of the play—interrogates each member of the family, asking questions about the part they played in Eva Smith’s life. We then discover that Sheila Birling encountered Eva Smith at Milwards, where Sheila jealously insisted that she was dismissed. Sheila feels tremendously guilty about her part in Eva’s death. It becomes clear that each member of the family might have part of the responsibility.
Eva Smith then, we discover, changed her name to Daisy Renton—and it is by this name that she encountered Gerald Croft, with whom she had a protracted love affair. Sheila is not as upset as one might expect; indeed, she seems to have already guessed why Gerald was absent from their relationship last summer. He put her up in a cottage he was looking after, made love to her, and gave her gifts of money, but after a while, he ended the relationship. Gerald asks the Inspector, whose control over proceedings is now clear, to leave—and Sheila gives him back his engagement ring.
The Inspector next interrogates Mrs. Birling, who remains icily resistant to accepting any responsibility. Eva Smith came to her, pregnant, to ask for help from a charity committee of which Mrs. Birling was chairperson. Mrs. Birling used her influence to have the committee refuse to help the girl. Mrs. Birling resists the Inspector’s questioning, eventually forcefully telling him that the father of the child is the one with whom the true responsibility rests.
It transpires, to Mrs. Birling’s horror, that Eric was, in fact, the father of the child, and she has just unwittingly damned her own son. Once Eric returns, the Inspector interrogates him about his relationship with Eva Smith. After meeting her in a bar when he was drunk (he has a drinking problem), he forced his way into her rooms, then later returned and continued their sexual relationship. He also gave her money that he had stolen from his father’s works, but after a while, Eva broke off the relationship, telling Eric that he did not love her.
The Inspector makes a final speech, telling the Birlings, “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.” He exits.
After his exit, the Birlings initially fight among themselves. Sheila finally suggests that the Inspector might not have been a real police inspector. Gerald returns, having found out as much from talking to a policeman on the corner of the street. The Birlings begin to suspect that they have been hoaxed. Significantly, Eric and Sheila, unlike their parents and Gerald, still see themselves as responsible. “He was our police inspector all right,” Eric and Sheila conclude, whether or not he had the state’s authority or was even real.
Realizing that they could each have been shown a different photograph, and after calling the Chief Constable to confirm their suspicions, Mr. and Mrs. Birling and Gerald conclude that they have been hoaxed, and they are incredibly relieved. Gerald suggests that there were probably several different girls in each of their stories. They call the Infirmary and learn delightedly that no girl has died that night—the Infirmary has seen no suicide for months. Everyone, it seems, is off the hook, even if each of their actions was immoral and irresponsible. Only Sheila and Eric fail to agree with that sentiment and recognize the overall theme of responsibility. As Birling mocks his children’s feelings of moral guilt, the phone rings.
He answers it and is shocked, revealing the play’s final twist: “That was the police. A girl has just died—on her way to the Infirmary—after swallowing some disinfectant. And a police inspector is on his way here—to ask some—questions—”
Major Themes
Class
Taking the play from a socialist perspective inevitably focuses on issues of social class. Class is a large factor, indirectly, in the events of the play and Eva Smith’s death. Mrs. Birling, Priestley notes, is her husband’s social superior, just as Gerald will be Sheila’s social superior if they do get married. Priestley also subtly notes that Gerald’s mother, Lady Croft, disapproves of Gerald’s marrying Sheila for precisely this reason. Finally, everyone’s treatment of Eva might be put down (either in part or altogether) to the fact that she is a girl, as Mrs. Birling puts it, “of that class.” Priestley clearly was interested in the class system and how it determines the decisions that people make.
Youth and Age
The play implicitly draws out a significant contrast between the older and younger generations of Birlings. While Arthur and Sybil refuse to accept responsibility for their actions toward Eva Smith (Arthur, in particular, is only concerned for his reputation and his potential knighthood), Eric and especially Sheila are shaken by the Inspector’s message and their role in Eva Smith’s suicide. The younger generation is taking more responsibility, perhaps because they are more emotional and idealistic, but perhaps because Priestley is suggesting a more communally responsible socialist future for Britain.
Responsibility and Avoiding It
Though responsibility itself is a central theme of the play, the last act of the play provides a fascinating portrait of the way that people can let themselves off the hook. If one message of the play is that we must all care more thoroughly about the general welfare, it is clear that the message is not shared by all. By contrasting the older Birlings and Gerald with Sheila and Eric, Priestley explicitly draws out the difference between those who have accepted their responsibility and those who have not.
Cause and Effect
The Inspector outlines a “chain of events” that may well have led to Eva Smith’s death. Her suicide, seen in this way, is likely the product not of one person acting alone, but of a group of people each acting alone; it resulted from several causes. If Birling had not sacked Eva in the first place, Sheila could not have had her dismissed from Milwards, and Eric and Gerald would not have met her in the Palace bar. Had she never known Eric, she would never have needed to go to the charity commission. This series of events is closely associated with Priestley’s fascination with time and how things in time cause or are caused by others.
Time
Time, which deeply fascinated Priestley, is a central theme in many of his works. He famously was interested in Dunne’s theory of time, which argued that the past was still present, and that time was not linear as many traditional accounts suggest. An Inspector Calls explicitly deals with the nature of time in its final twist: has the play, we might wonder, simply gone back in time? Is it all about to happen again? How does the Inspector know of the “fire and blood and anguish,” usually interpreted as a foreshadowing of the First and Second World Wars?
The Supernatural
The Inspector’s name, though explicitly spelled “Goole” in the play, is often interpreted through an alternative spelling: “ghoul.” The Inspector, it seems, is not a “real” Brumley police inspector, and Priestley provides no answer as to whether we should believe his claim that he has nothing to do with Eva Smith. What are we to make of the police inspector who rings to announce his arrival at the end of the play? Is the original Inspector, perhaps, a ghost? What forces are at work in the play to make the Birlings really accept their responsibility and guilt?
Social Duty
“We do not live alone,” the Inspector says in his final speech, “we are members of one body.” This perhaps is the most important and central theme of the play: that we have a duty to other people, regardless of social status, wealth, class, or anything else. There is, Priestley observes, such a thing as society, and he argues that it is important that people be aware of the effects of their actions on others. The Birlings, of course, initially do not think at all about how they might have affected Eva Smith, but they are forced to confront their likely responsibility over the course of the play.
QUESTION . . . .
One of the main themes of An Inspector Calls is that of lies. Show how Priestley exposes deceit, both in his characters and in society as a whole. Discuss with close reference to the novel.
Lies is one of the main themes of “An Inspector Calls.’ We discover that in this play, much deception is practiced in a tangled woven web of lies.
Sybil Birling, a social snob, is revealed as a liar when she states that she has never met Eva Smith. In fact, she has met Eva, when the latter appealed to the Brumley Women’s Committee for help. As she is a liar, Goole is accordingly harshest with her, when he exposes her.
Eva, the deluded victim, lied to Sybil for survival, calling herself “Mrs. Birling.” In fact, she is unmarried and is the mother of Eric’s unborn child. Why should she presume to call herself “Mrs. Birling”? Perhaps it is because Birling is Eric’s surname and she represented herself initially as an abused married woman. Perhaps she hoped that Sybil would pity her, or she wished to blackmail Sybil for concealing the shameful secret. However, her unfortunate indiscretion led Sybil to spurn an subsequently lie to Goole.
Arthur, as a parsimonious Capitalist, insists that he is not responsible for Eva’s death. He lives in a world of self-delusion, in which he figures as the hero.
When this is viewed in the perspective of society as a whole, Arthur is living a lie. As an employer, he ought to provide Eva with benefits yet denies his responsibility when she commits suicide. He is clearly responsible for her death as he had fired her. His mask of shallow hypocrisy is exposed in the revelation of Eva’s impregnation by Eric. He is furious with Eric for seducing Eva not because he pities the latter. Instead, he says, “There’ll be a public scandal.” He wishes to keep the scandal under wraps in order to protect his reputation and this is living a life of deceit.
Sybil as the member of the Brumley Women’s Committee, is supposed to offer assistance to battered women. However, she rejects Eva’s appeal for aid, dismissing her. The Committee, in fact, is but a mere lie – it is a veneer for status and respectability rather than a helper of unfortunate females. Priestley portrays his contempt for the upper classes that use facades for prestige but do little. Goole, too, is ultimately revealed as a liar as he is not an Inspector. He serves to trip the masks of the others and expose deceit. In this way, deceit reveals deceit.
Hence, deceit in a society as a whole is extremely prevalent. Eva used it to survive; the Birlings practiced it for a secure reputation. However, deceit is a destructive force that eventually pulls us down when it is revealed as in the cases of Eva and the Birlings; and this way, Priestley conveys his opinions on the shallowness of deceit, particularly when exposed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION . . .
Sheila represents the younger generation that Priestley hops is still open-minded enough to learn to accept responsibilities for others. Describe Sheila.
Sheila, being a member of the younger generation in an upper-middle class hierarchy, is initially naïve and spoilt. We see her spite and malice when she had Eva Smith fired for humiliating her by looking pretty. The Inspector observes that she was “jealous of her.”
However, she is open-minded and not truly conservative. I n one instance, she tells Eric, “You’re squiffy” which was considered unladylike in 1912, for “squiffy” is a slang for “slightly drunk.” Furthermore, she affectionately kisses Gerald in a state of excited elation upon receiving a ring from him. In those days, girls were expected to be modest, virtuous and constrained. “Oh, darling!” she exclaims in delight.
Furthermore, when the revelations of her spite acted on Eva and the dilapidated conditions of laborers are brought to her, she is genuinely shocked. Certainly she has a sensitive nature hidden within that is brought out when she is undeceived. When the Inspector informs her that there are girls who live in poverty-stricken states due to parsimonious employers, she protests, “But these girls aren’t cheap labour – they’re people.”
In the end, she is shown to be impressionable, being affected by Goole’s harangue and accepting responsibility for Eva’s death; she clearly sees her luckless wrongs, and is honest enough to face up to her gross misdeed. “It doesn’t much matter” that Goole turns out not to be an Inspector, she feels.
Hence, through Sheila, Priestley wishes to show that the younger generation is open-minded enough to learn to accept responsibilities for others. As they are young, mutable and inexperienced, such radical responsibility can be inculcated in them, being receptive to new ideas.
Select one of the members of the Birling family. Write a character study, using the text for reference, to show how Priestley uses the character to convey his own opinions and attitudes.
The playwright of “An Inspector Calls,” J.B. Priestley, was a dedicated supporter of socialism, and by writing this play, he vents his own opinions and attitudes through his characters. The play is set in 1912, two years prior to the First World War, in the home of a prosperous manufacturer, Arthur Birling. It is perceptible to the reader that a prevailing aspect of the play is Capitalism versus socialism. This theme centres on Arthur Birling, a Capitalist.
A conspicuous trait in Arthur Birling is his egotism. If one analyses deeply, Birling, in fact, is a subject of satire; he is intended to be portrayed as a typical Capitalist. A man of wealth, he is a pompous snob of the upper hierarchy, often ostentatiously displaying his advantageous connections. “I might find my way into the next Honours List … a knighthood… I was Lord Mayor … when Royalty visited us,” he boasts to Gerald Croft. Besides, he is obviously elated to welcome Gerald into his arms as his future son-in-law. “You’re just the kind of son-in-law I always wanted” and “I’m delighted about this engagement” show that he is impressed by Gerald’s genteel family. This is rather amusing. J.B. Priestley wishes to point out his contempt for capitalist class systems by satirizing Arthur Birling; the reader can see that Birling’s vulnerability to high society is indeed shallow; the latter views the veneer of respectability as an honour. We ought to respect those with honour, ideals and determination; Gerald’s character is not particularly radical or persevering, yet Birling admires him for his wealth and gentility.
Further illustrations of Birling’s character are in his eager remarks to Gerald, “we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings … are working together – for lower costs and higher prices.” We can see his greed and parsimony; this is supposed to be a relaxed, joyous celebration, yet Birling must “talk business on an occasion like this.” It is clear that his desire for wealth cannot be restrained, even when he is supposed to be at ease. Later, we find proof of his avarice: he refused to raise the wages of capable employees despite being well-off. Priestley, being a Socialist, is concerned for the ill-paid lower classes. Birling shows an injustice in refusing to reward Eva Smith, a “good worker.” In fact, he can afford to raise her salary, which she deserved as she increased productivity, and hence, his earnings. Yet he is obstinate in his selfishness. Priestley wishes to show how shallow, money-grubbing and stingy capitalists can be; many things are to their advantage, as they held power and dominance over their social inferiors. If their employees go on strike, they are dismissed, as eva Smith was. There was little protection for workers then. Money is a destructive force an Priestley demonstrates his disdain for its risky influence. Its evil influence is portrayed in Birling, the puppet, as it obstructs our finer feelings. We ought to compensate those who work industriously towards higher profits, and give employees a right to live better lives and more equally.
Responsibility hovers around the play. As an employer, Birling is responsible for his workers’ welfare. He is responsible for paying their wages and to provide them with a suitable workplace. /yet, we see that he refused to increase the renumeration of capable workers. It is his responsibility to provide them so that that can enjoy a life of sufficient needs. Indignant, his employees started a strike, and Eva Smith, who spoke out – understandably – for her rights, was dismissed. A young woman in her position had little to live on, and Birling who already behaved graspingly, ought to have re-employed her, to provide her with a job. In another perspective, this solution would have fulfilled his other responsibility – to the consumers. Being capable, Eva Smith and the other ringleaders would have increased productivity, quality of the products and profits. With these girls, Birling could have offered better products to his consumers. After her dismissal, Eva was forced to resort to finding another job, but her earlier dismissal led to a concatenation of disastrous events, torment and ultmtely, her death. When the Inspector confronts Birling with this information, Birling cold-heartedly refuses to “accept any responsibility” for her death as it would be “very awkward.” Eva was helping Birling to make profits; in other words, she shared responsibility. Priestley indicates that we should share our responsibility – fairly. Birling ought to have allowed Eva more freedom for her diligence, and taken her under his wing. It is his responsibility to pay her benefits. Capitalists should be willing to accept responsibility. To ignore their workers’ needs would be inhumane. Capitalists gain profits from their employees’ efforts and drudgery, and should therefore ensure a comfortable living for them. More so, as Birling did not provide benefits, he is even more accountable for Eva’s sufferings. Priestley shows that the rich make the poor suffer, yet give them an unequal share and refuse to be held accountable for their inhumane actions.
Another implication lies in Birling’s role as the autocratic father. He is narrow-minded and prejudiced against the lower-classes, the young and revolution. The revelation of Birling’s hand in Eva’s demise arouses Eric, “why shouldn’t they try for higher wages? We try for the highest possible prices.” Birling instead becomes angry with him and this shows his hypocrisy. He aims to charge higher prices, but disallows his workers from following suit. Sheila voices her sympathy for Eva, but Birling disdains this. He evidently does not believe in the young voicing their opinions. This play is not merely about the pinions of Socialists, but also the ideas of the young. It is the young who bring new ideas, but due to their unestablished position in the world, the old hold them in contempt. A Radical, Priestley points this out. The old cannot change sufficiently quickly for new reforms. They fear this change, and impose their haughty stands on the youngsters. Eric and Sheila express their views that labourers have the right to “try for higher wagers”, Birling puts is foot down. The young are less hardened, but they are exposed to new ideas, and can do better for the labourers. They consider possibilities; Birling retorts that “there isn’t a chance of war.” He is trying to avoid the possibilities of his ruin. It is ironical that he mentions, “Look at the progress we’re making.” For further progress, the ideals and the efforts of the young are required. With Birling’s preconceived notions, society cannot progress to a fairer state. How can we hope for revolution with the young suppressed?
Birling’s bigotry is depicted in his male chauvinism. He treats females with less respect, and with contempt. He views them as mere toys. The discovery of Gerald’s amorous intrigue with Eva Smith does not perturb him. Gerald has committed an indiscretion by seducing Eva and betraying Sheila, and Sheila resents this. Birling, however, states that “you must understand that a lot of young men –” have libidinous flings. It does not anger him. He feels that it is all right in men to philander, but he does not respect Sheila’s resentment of Gerald’s indiscretion, and forces her to marry him. That portrays that he does not respect her rightful opinion. He has little admiration for womanly strength, insisting that “there isn’t the slightest reason why my daughter should be dragged into this unpleasant business.” To him, women are weak, and ought not to know about violence and strumpery. Girls at that time were expected to be innocent. Priestley feels that women should be given the right to know “unpleasant and disturbing things” and express their opinions. As a large component of the workforce, women are exposed to drudgery, knowledge and the ways of the world; they ought to have the right to defend themselves and give opinions. After the war, many men were killed. And women became more significant in the workforce. Should not capable women be free to speak? Being ignorant increases their vulnerability, and girls like Eva Smith do not have the protection of a male figure.
There is a suggestiveness conveyed by Priestley. Birling, as we know, is against Socialism. He does not believe in the possibility of war. “Just because the Kaiser makes a speech or two, or a few German officers … begin talking nonsense … there isn’t a chance of war … The world’s developing so fat …Look at the progress we’re making … we’ll have aeroplanes that will be able to go anywhere … you’ll be living in a world that’ll have forgotten all these Capital versus Labour agitations and all these silly little war scares.” Naturally, the First World War took place after this, in 1914, and the progress in technology aided it. The downtrodden revolted and fought for more equality, despite the fact that rich Capitalists pooh-poohed this notion. It is as though Priestley is telling the reader that although the capitalists believed otherwise, war occurred, and Socialism triumphed. The war caused more equality. Therefore, Priestley suggest, socialism, being an excellent ideal, gained victory, hence it is like a battle between “good and evil.” Priestley is cynical about monetary success under Capitalism. He feels contempt for Capitalists like Birling, who disdain Labour, and expressed this scorn by making Birling a hateable, despicable person.
The truth is beautiful. Birling strives to conceal Eric’s affair with Eva, in order to preserve his reputation. Why should we deny the facts? Birling, besides, disapproves of his daughter’s knowledge about his covetousness and Gerald’s indiscretion. Priestley detests pretension that comes with social stability. That way, we can administer justice and determine our responsibilities. Capitalists are supposed to be law abiding; they do not permit strikes. Yet the truth is veiled.
Therefore, it is evident that Priestley conveys his revolutionary opinions and attitudes toward society through this play, through subtle means. The characters serve as his puppet-like orators, but with an enthralling plot, influence the reader to think, reflect and analyse the differences between then and now. There are many opinions expressed in this drama, and we can discern Priestley’s wrath and contempt in Arthur Birling.
THE LANDLADY by Roald Dahl
QUESTION . . .
How has the reading of The Landlady by Roald Dahl taught you that one must be cautious and not too trusting? Discuss with close reference to the text.
An evident theme in “The Landlady” by Roald Dahl is that appearances are deceptive. Billy, due to his naïveté, is taken in by the landlady, thus portraying insufficient caution
In one instance, when he rings the bell of the landlady’s house, he is immediately informed that the rent required is “fantastically cheap.” This compels him to stay there. Yet the house is surrounded in comfort and luxury with “a pretty little dachshund” and a “plump sofa.” Such material convenience is synonymous with exorbitant charges but he is not suspicious of the fiendish schemes brewing in her mind. It is ironical that he found the rent reasonable, for his naïveté has, ultimately, to pay an even higher price – his life.
Furthermore, upon viewing her house, he notices a “a pretty little dachshund” and a “large parrot”, enticing him to stay there. “Animals were usually a good sign.” However, little does he know that they have met their demise until later.
The landlady’s external veneer is attractive; she seems warm and kind with “gentle blue eyes.” So courteous is she that she has thoughtfully prepared Bill’s room. She is depicted as being affectionate such as calling him an endearment, “dear.” This draws him to her. Such wonderful treatment is highly suggestive of concealed evil and ulterior motives, yet Billy suspects nothing. She wishes to preserve his corpse, but he believes her to be a good woman. This may result in his luckless demise.
Moreover, the landlady generously prepared tea for him, which he accepts. The tea tastes of “bitter almonds’ and he is still innocent to her devious schemes.
Only while they are seated together does he realize that the dachshund and the parrot are deceased. They looked so homely and indicated a “good sign” initially, nut he is undeceived upon discovering their preserved state. Further abnormal behaviour of the landlady is depicted when she says her previous tenant’s skin was just “like a baby’s.” Upon being informed that she stiffs and preserves her death pets, Billy, instead of recoiling, “stared with deep admiration.” Her indecorous indiscretion of remarking on the young man’s skin ought to have put him on his guard, yet he is fascinated and thinks little of this. How could she have discovered that “there wasn’t a blemish” on her victim’s body – unless by malevolent means?
Therefore, one must be cautious and not too trusting. This innocent attribute in Billy despite all the subtle hints, leads to his ensnarement, and ultimately, his impending death. This story teaches me this lesson.
A story of thrill,suspense and supernatural. That's how I describe The Landlady.
For me, the Landlady can be seen as kind and generous but with a motive - to satisfy her fetish of embalming everything that she sees beautiful - such as the dog, the parrot and of course, the three handsome young men that are unfortunate enough to fall into her trap.
I also see that the landlady is a psychotic lady who because of her loneliness and sadness, she resorts to killing because she thinks that that is the only way her 'companions' will stay by her side.
Or maybe not? Well, well, this is a story with a hint of supernatural in it after all. I say that apart from being a psychotic murderer, she can also be a mad scientist who is conducting an experiment and her 'specimens' are those that she holds dear to her.
In my opinion, this story is about how we can never judge a person just by seeing how she/he acts. First impression is not always the right impression of a person, but it does give us some ideas of how the person is like. Unfortunately, in Billy's case, it is this impression that will lead him to his untimely death.
After I have gone through The Landlady, I would like to say that its introduction was a descriptive narration. As for me, that part managed to made me feel that I was there, shared the sense of belonging of Billy’s traveling. It makes me travel along with Billy Weaver.
The part that managed to make my adrenaline dispensing extraordinarily was the time when Billy Weaver checked the guest entries of the “hotel”. There were only three them Christopher Mulholland, Gregory W. Temple and Billy Weaver. Only three entries for so long plus Billy Weaver’s. That make me feel something wrong with the landlady. Again my adrenaline PH went madly maximum when the landlady told Billy her ‘beloved-weird- art’, the parrot, the poor dachshund. As I run through the text, I keep wondering what will happen to poor Billy.
If we get rid of the landlady’s “weird art”, she was very kind in term of his friendliness as she served Billy, her respective customer. If we scrutinized it more deeper, the landlady was a terrible murderer. She was definitely lonely poor woman and that was why she stuffed her pets to make them remain there and stay look-alive. How about the three poor young men? Try to listening your instinct and you will know the hints. It could be something bad happened in the past to her and it affected his mind to do those things.
The story was very puzzling because of its enigma values and its ending was hanging just like that. I was wondering what was in the Billy’s tea cup.
The Landlady by Roald Dahl really a story which full of questions. We cannot even predict the motive from the landlady. First of all, I don’t think the landlady is a generous and kind lady. However, I think she is a lonely lady who stays alone in the hotel and maybe she is an evil and mental illness lady?
There are many possibilities why the landlady want to preserve the parrot, dog, the two handsome guys, Christopher Mulholland and Gregory W. Temple. Maybe she is too lonely, therefore she wants to keep them to accompany her forever. As we discussed in our tutorial class, the landlady maybe miss her son who around 20 years old, so she is so selective for who living in the hotel. She just select those guys are around that age and handsome. After that, she will preserve them in the hotel and not allow them to go out. Or maybe she had a bad husband or terrible lifestyle before and makes her feel desperate with her life now. She just wants to do something else to let herself feel comfortable.
Maybe preserving things are her hobby, it’s a good ideal! Landlady is not like a normal human, for sure she will have particular hobby. So it won’t make us feel amazed.
This is a mystery story; we don’t know what is actually happen to the two handsome guys who stayed in the hotel before. Maybe they already killed by landlady or maybe them still alive but stuffed by landlady in the room?
From the beginning of the meeting of Billy Weaver and the landlady, I already felt there was something wrong with this landlady. It seemed like the lady waited impatiently at the front door all the time for someone to come. At first I thought she was weirdly kind but from time to time I got the feeling there was something suspicious about this lady. She seemed willing to do anything as long as Billy would be happy to stay at the Bed and Breakfast. She acted TOO kind and TOO generous. Suddenly Billy guessed that the lady might have ‘lost a son in the war, or something like that’, and I agree with Billy that the lady had lost her only son that she loved so much. It was because she was really pleased to get young men as her guests. She was very lonely and sad although the feelings were not shown to Billy or us. The feelings were hidden inside her.
I believe the landlady was a PSYCHO. She could not get over her lost, loneliness and sadness, and eventually became a psycho, a mad person, but she was not the kind who screams or laughs at people. She acted like a good person. Therefore people could not detect that her brain was not right anymore. She was not sincerely kind or generous and not a sincere killer too. Her acts in the story were because she was already a mad woman. She could not think right anymore. It was more like doing something unconsciously and uncontrollably.
I think the story deals well with psychology of a person, which in this case, the landlady. It might be that after losing her son, she did not come out of her house to mix around with other people. Sadly, she was someone who could not control her feelings of loneliness and sorrow. Since she had no one to support her, these feelings ultimately caused her to be mad. Since she was the quiet psycho type who only stayed at home, nobody else knew about her madness and could never guessed she preserved deceased animals and young men to accompany her.
I quite have some pity on the landlady. She was mad because she was lonely and she had no supporters. We all should not be like her. We should find someone we trust to talk to about our problems. Of course we still keep SOME secrets to ourselves, but it is never good to keep EVERY thing to ourselves. It might explode. Sometimes we have to talk it out. If not, we could be mad like the landlady.
