Arther Miller's All My Son

Arther Miller's All My Son

A leading American playwright, Arthur Miller, was born in New York on 17th October 1915. He has enriched the Broadway stage for several decades. Although Miller's dramas take place in familiar settings, he has made a reputation for dealing with contemporary political and social issues.

Miller's parents were of Jewish origin, and belonged to a family of American Jews. His father (Isadoc Miller) was quite a prosperous Germanic businessman and manufacturer who owned a factory for some years. But the great depression of 1931 ruined him financially and he moved to Brooklyn, a less prosperous part of New York. The economic hardship in the family were not without their impact on the young boy, Arthur. He received his early education at Harlem, and later attended High School at Brooklyn from where he passed his examination in 1932. His life during school days was not an easy or comfortable one. Living a life of poverty, Miller had to work as an errand boy doing odd jobs such as delivering bread for the local bakery before attending classes at the school.

The economic condition of the family did not allow Miller to go to some college after passing the high school. Naturally, he had to work for sometime to earn money to meet the expenses of his college education. Having saved enough money, he got education in the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), where he took a course in journalism in 1934. For about eight years after graduating from Michigan, Miller was engaged in various jobs and also in writing.

In June 1956, Miller divorced his first wife and married a very glamorous and popular actress, Marilyn Monroe, on June 1956. This marriage could not last long, and was followed by divorce in 1961. Marilyn Monroe later committed suicide. This sad event of Miller's life has been dramatised by him in his play After the Fall. The heroine of his film–script, The Misfits also resembles Marilyn Monroe. In 1962, Miller had his third marriage, this time with Miss Ingbory Morath, an Austrian photographer. Miller wrote a travel journal in Russia (1969) in collaboration with his wife.

Miller had to face much trouble because of his social and political beliefs. Although he was not a Communist, yet he frequently attended their meetings. As Prof. Nissim Ezekiel remarks, "A writer with strong social and political commitments, Miller frequently faced difficulties with conservatives and reactionary circles in America".¹

Miller was believed to be and accused of espousing the cause of communists, and was refused a passport on this ground to visit Drussels to attend the Beligan premiere of his play, The Crucible in 1955, an investigation carried on by the New York City Youth Board into his affiliation with the communists.

Miller began writing plays while a student at the University of Michigan, where several of his dramatic efforts were rewarded with prizes. In 1937, during his senior year, one of his early plays was presented in Detroit by the Federal Theatre Project. In 1944 his The Man Who Had All the Luck won a prize offered by New York City's Theatre Guild.

With his first successes – All My Sons (1947; film, 1948), winner of the Drama Critics Circle Award, and Death of a Salesman (1949; film, 1952) winner of both the Drama Critics Circle Award and the Pulitzer Prize, Miller condemned the American ideal of prosperity on the grounds that few can pursue it without making dangerous moral compromises. Death of a Salesman, with its expressionistic overtones, remains Miller's most widely admired work. The keen social conscience evident in these plays has continued to manifest itself in Miller's writing. In the Tony Award winning The Crucible (1953), for instance, he wrote of the witch–hunts in Colonial Salem, Mass and implied a parallel with the congressional investigations into subversion then in progress. The probing psychological tragedy, A View from the Bridge (1955) questions the reasonableness of U.S. immigration laws. After the Fall (1964), which includes a thinly disguised portrayal of Miller's unhappy marriage to film actress Marilyn Monroe, offers a second candid consideration of the congressional investigations in which Miller had been personally involved. Two one–act plays, Incident at Vichy (1964) and The Price (1968), deal with the universality of human responsibility and the guilt that often accompanies survival and success.

Miller's later dramatic works include The Creation of the World and Other Business (1972). The latter one seemed too openly didactic for both critics and audiences. The Ride Down Mount Morgan (1991) opened in London to mixed reviews. Thus, most of Miller's work is indeed didactic.

Miller's writing outside the theatre have been prolific and varied. His novel, Focus (1945) is an ironic tale of anti–semitism. The screenplay for The Misfits (1961) is only one of the several he has written. In 1969, he wrote in Russia, a travel piece with illustrations by his wife. Chinese Encounters (1979) is another traveller's tale, while Salesman in Beijing (1984) is an account of the production of his play in Chinese. The Theatre Essays of Arthur Miller were collected in 1978. In 1987, Miller published Timebends : A Life, his autobiography.

1.2   An Introduction to the Play : Miller's First Stage Success

All My Sons made its first appearance on the stage in January, 1947. With this play, Miller achieved his first stage triumph. It was the success of this play which created his public reputation and which secured his economic future. It was at this time, and with the money obtained from the production of this play, that he bought a farm–house in a small town of the State of Connecticut. The play ran for 328 performances.

The New York Drama Critics awarded to this play their Circle Award. The movie rights for making a film on the basis of this play were purchased by Hollywood, the film starring Burt Lancaster and Edward G. Robinson. Miller was invited to write the script for the film, but he refused and, instead, began working on a play which he called Plenty Good Times, which was a love–story of working people in an industrial city. When he found that he could not go on with this play, he turned to another project which ultimately became his most famous play, namely Death of a Salesman.

The Play, a Criticism of Capitalism in its Present Form

In All My Sons, as in his other early plays, Miller represents capitalism as creating an exploitative system which denies individual identity. Capitalism, according to Miller, creates false needs and implies that the satisfaction of those needs would resolve a longing which is in truth spiritual in origin. Capitalism substitutes role for identity, and replaces the individual with economic relationships. And yet in these plays Miller never proposes a fundamental change in the economic or political structure of American society. He merely insists that a moral basis for action should be rediscovered, and that there should be a revised definition of social behaviour. For Miller, the economic depression of the nineteen–thirties was a crucial event. In his mind, it was the only experience in American history, apart from the Civil War, which had affected all Americans. He felt that the world could be changed but not merely through a redistribution of economic power. In fact, he developed a decidedly non–Marxist faith in the individual. In All My Sons, Miller creates the possibility of an America purged of its corruption.

The Story of the Play in Outline 

All My Sons is a play with a social thesis. The story was intended by Miller to arouse the social conscience. Joe Keller, a manufacturer is, in this play, forced to accept individual social responsibility and consequently to accept his personal guilt for having sold, on one occasion during World War II, fatally defective aeroplane parts to government. The defective cylinder heads supplied by him led to the deaths of twenty–one pilots. At his trial, he had denied the responsibility, letting his timid partner, Steve Deever, take the blame and the punishment. Having been exonerated, Joe Keller has successfully re–established his business and, though his neighbours still believe him to be guilty, they have apparently accepted him back into their social life. But relief at his acquittal is diluted by grief at the loss of his son Larry, reported missing in action and presumed dead. When the play opens, about three and a half years later, that son's fiance, Annie (daughter of Joe Keller's business partner who is now in jail), arrives to marry the dead boy's brother, Chris Keller. Annie's arrival brings about a crisis in the Keller family, and especially for Kate Keller who has always refused to accept the fact of the death of her son Larry, and who had so far been seeing Annie's failure to marry anybody else as a proof of Annie's similar faith in his being still alive. But her acceptance of Larry's death also forces her to acknowledge some connection between that death and what she knows to be her husband's guilt. The situation becomes more complicated when Annie's brother, George arrives to confront Joe Keller with that guilt. And, although George fails to obtain a confession from Joe Keller, the planned marriage between Annie and  Chris brings about that confession because Chris's mother plays her final card in order to prevent the marriage which could mean the end of her belief and her hope in Larry's continued survival. She reveals her husband's guilt to her son Chris. But she and her husband are finally defeated by a letter which Annie now reveals. In this letter the missing son Larry had announced his intention to commit suicide because of his father's dishonest action in having supplied defective equipment to the Air Force. Finding himself compelled to accept the responsibility for his dishonest action, Joe Keller shoots himself.

The Principal Characters in the Play

Leaving aside the subsidiary characters, the play introduces us to two families, the Keller family, and the Deever family. Joe Keller is the head of the Keller family; Kate is his wife; and Chris his surviving son, the other son, Larry by name, having been reported missing during the war, is presumed as dead. The head of the Deever family, namely Steve Deever, is in jail; and he does not make a personal appearance anywhere in the play. From this family Annie Deever, the daughter, and George Deever, the son, have important roles in the action of the play. Joe Keller is the guilty man who had, by means of a distortion of the facts and by means of a total lie in the court, got himself acquitted of the responsibility for having supplied defective engine heads to the American Air Force. His wife, Kate Keller, knows her husband's guilt, but the son Chris does not. When George Deever exposes Joe Keller's secret, Chris, who has a delicate conscience, begins to feel most miserable. Chris would now like his father to go to jail and, in fact, he gets ready to take his father to the police to make a confession. However, at this point Joe Keller shoots himself. Annie is the girl who was engaged to marry Larry Keller and who possesses incontrovertible evidence of Larry's death. She is now willing to marry the dead Larry's younger brother, Chris. Kate Keller is opposed to her son Chris's proposed marriage with Annie; but, after Joe Keller commits suicide, the way is cleared for Chris and Annie to get married. This last act is, however, left to our imagination because the play ends with both Chris and Kate sobbing over Joe Keller's suicide.

Miller's Own Comments on the Play

Miller's own comments on this play are worthy of notice. He tells us that the play begins in an atmosphere of undisturbed normality and that its first Act was designed by him to be a slow affair. In fact, says Miller, he had even tried to make the start of the play somewhat boring, his object being to horrify the audience when the first hint of the crime committed by Joe Keller is dropped. The horror, according to Miller, would result from the contrast between the serenity of the civilization on view and the threat to that civilization from the stirrings of the human conscience. Miller then goes on to say that the crime in the play is not one which is about to be committed but one which had been committed long ago. The damage, which the crime could do, has already been done, and been done irreparably. The only thing, which now remains to be dealt with, is the conscience of Joe Keller, and also the conscience of his son Chris in the face of what he has come to know about his father. The structure of the play, says Miller, was designed by him to bring a character into the direct path of the consequences of his misdeed. This play may, therefore, be regarded as a moral play. Miller further says. Joe Keller is a threat to society and, in this sense, the play is a social play. The "socialness" of the play does not reside in its treatment of the crime of selling defective equipment to a nation at war. The "socialness" lies in the fact that the crime is to be seen as having its roots in a certain relationship of the individual to society, and to a certain indoctrination which that individual embodies.

The Germ of the Play, According to Miller

Miller tells us also how this play originated. During an idle chat in his house, a pious lady visitor told him of a family in her neighbourhood which had been destroyed when the daughter handed over her father to the police on discovering that he had been selling faulty machinery to the army. World War II, says Miller, was at that time raging in all its fury. By the time that lady had finished her account, Miller had, in his imagination, changed the daughter into a son, and the climax of the second Act had taken a full and clear shape in his mind. The crisis in the second Act of All My Sons consists in the revelation of the odiousness and obnoxiousness of an anti–social action (The anti–social action, as already indicated, is the supply by Joe Keller of defective cylinder heads to the Air Force).

The Play, as Viewed by Miller Retrospectively

Looking at the play retrospectively, Miller writes that he thinks now that the straightforwardness of All My Sons form was in some part due to the relatively sharp definition of the social aspects of the problem it death with. It was conceived in war–time and begun in war–time; the spectacle of human sacrifice in contrast with aggrandisement is a sharp and heart–breaking one. At a time when all public voices were announcing the arrival of that great day when industry and labour were one, his personal experience was daily demonstrating that beneath the slogans very little had changed. In this sense the play was a response to what he felt "in the air". It was an unveiling of what he believed everybody knew and nobody publicly said. At the same time, however, he believed he was bringing news, and it was news which he half expected would be denied as truth.

When, in effect, it was accepted, he was gratified, but a little surprised. The success of a play, especially one's first success, is somewhat like pushing against a door which is suddenly opened from the other side. One may fall on one's face or not, but certainly a new room is opened that was always secured shut until then. For him, the experience was invigorating. It suddenly seemed that the audience was a mass of blood relations and he sensed a warmth in the world that had not been there before. It made it possible to dream of daring more and risking more. The audience sat in silence before the unwinding of All My Sons and gasped when they should have, and he tasted that power which is reserved for playwrights.

As well, the production of the play was an introduction to the acting art and its awesome potentials. He wanted to use more of what lay in actors to be used. To me, the most incredible spectacle of this first successful production  was the silence it enforced. It seemed then that the stage was as wide and free and towering and laughingly inventive as the human mind itself, and he wanted to press closer towards its distant edges. A success places one among friends. The world is friendly, the audience is friendly, and that is good. It also reveals, even more starkly than a failure – for a failure is always ill–defined – what remains undone.

Reasons for the Excellence of This Play

All My Sons is frankly and evidently a didactic play with  a strong moral impulse behind it. But its moral is conveyed to us in such a way that the didactic purpose does not obtrude upon us in any blatant or pompous manner. In fact, the play is thoroughly enjoyable despite its serious and moral purpose. It is a play which combines instruction with entertainment. There is plenty of tension in the play to give it a dramatic quality, and there is plenty of humour in it too to relieve the tension. The incidental dialogue, in which the subsidiary characters have a major share, contributes its own share to the entertainment value of the play as also to its realistic quality. The characters have all been drawn with a strong sense of realism, and the plot moves forward naturally and convincingly as also briskly. And what is more, the play has an appeal for the young and the elderly alike, for mothers, for fathers, for sons, for daughters, for husbands, for wives, in peace time as well as in times of war.

1.3   Form  and  Structure  of  'All My Sons'

Miller may be said to be more interested in the portrayal of social reality and the characters who may be relevant to this portrayal. His plays are more remarkable for their characterisation and their treatment of social and moral issues than for the element of action or structure in them. Miller was more concerned with the proper development of his characters than that of his plots. His plots may be regarded as of secondary importance as compared with his characterisation or the treatment of the theme related to the relationship of the individual and society. However, he has not entirely ignored the structure of his plays; he has tried to build up properly organised structures. He has given a proper form to his plays even while concentrating on the expression of his ideas through various characters.

The form and structure of Miller's play All My Sons can hardly be overpraised. Its structure is as remarkable as its theme and its characters. The play is marked by an organic unity, and has a well–knit structure. It deals with its chief theme of the relationship of the individual with his society and his fellows, and with the crisis and conflicts arising therein. The characters, background, and situation are presented in it realistically. The chief theme and other subsidiary themes have been dealt with through a well–organised dramatic form. Being a play belonging to the classical tradition, it presents a real story through a tightly knit plot and structure. Joe Keller's committing the guilt of supplying defective equipment, his awareness of this guilt, the confrontation of his responsibility in this guilt caused by his son, the acknowledgement that all youngmen  were his sons, and his suicide, are the various actions that follow one another in a logical sequence. The plot is quite simple, and has almost no digression or sub–plots. The story is unfolded through the speech and interaction of characters like Joe Keller, Chris, Kate, Ann and George. Short, simple and informative dialogues are employed to tell the story and present the action in an artless manner. Miller tells us :

My intention in this play was to be as untheatrical as possible. To that end any metaphor, any image, any figure of speech, however creditable to me, was removed if it even slightly brought to consciousness the hand of a writer. So far as was possible nothing was to be permitted to interfere with its artlessness.²

All My Sons is the most classical of Miller's plays in the sense that the three unities of time, place and action as enunciated by Aristotle, have amply been observed in it. The unity of time can be found in the fact that the duration of the whole play consists of only 18 hours from Sunday morning to the early hours of Monday, and all the events and actions of the play occur during this time. The unity of place can be seen in the fact that the place of action in the entire play is confined to the backyard of Joe Keller's home in which live Joe Keller (60) an industrialist, his wife Kate ('early fifties') and their son Chris (32). Their neighbours, involved with the Kellers in some ways, as family friends, are Dr. Jim Bayliss (40) and his wife Sue ('rounding forty'), and Frank Lubey (32) and his wife Lydia (27). Bert, the eight–year–old son of Jim and Sue, appears briefly in the first act. The unity of action consists in the fact that there is one single predominant action in the play, i.e. Joe Keller's evasion of his responsibility in the supply of defective equipment which has its impact on the lives of various characters, and the consequences of which cause and constitute the tragedy of the play, in the form of the suicide of Joe Keller, the guilty man.

In the Keller home when the play begins is Ann Deever (26) who was engaged to Larry Keller, Chris' brother. Larry fought as a pilot in the Second World War and was reported missing. It is presumed by everybody that he is dead, except by his mother, Kate, who insists on believing that Larry will some day return. The complex psychological motives at the root of this illusion, play a major role in the development of the plot. Chris and Ann intend to marry. Kate objects on the ground that it would mean believing that Larry is dead.

Ann's father, Steve, was Keller's partner in a factory turning out cylinder heads for the Army Air Force during the war. A batch of these proved to be defectively manufactured but they were passed by the factory, and caused the death of twenty–one American pilots. There was a court case against the partners and both were convicted, but in the appeal that followed Keller was apparently given the benefit of the doubt. At any rate, he has allowed to go while Steve, Ann's father, was sent to jail where he is at the time the play opens.

Steve held that Keller had been told of the defective cylinder heads and had approved of passing them on for use. Keller had denied this in court. The neighbours  were inclined to believe that he was guilty, but Keller built up his business again and is on good terms with them. He tries to persuade himself that they have forgotten the story, but they haven't.

Ann believes and so does her brother George that their father knowingly shipped out parts that would crash an airplane. Angry and ashamed, they have abandoned him in jail. Keller attempts to explain to Ann the conditions in which wartime production was done and defends his former partner from any charge worse than a mistaken decision. Chris describes to Ann, in discussing their proposed marriage, his frustration on finding that life after the war was the same as it had been before - "that rat–race again ... nobody was changed at all". (36) It meant that those killed in the war had sacrificed themselves in vain. The values of co–operation and mutual responsibility which they had built up by their actions had been lost, and people behaved as if the war had been something like a 'bus accident'.

When Chris and Ann formally announce their intention of getting married, there is a trunk–call from George, Ann's brother, now a lawyer. The call is from Columbus (Ohio) where their father is serving his sentence in jail. Keller shows his nervousness at this and so does his wife. From their conversation we suspect that both have an inkling of what is about to happen : the exposure of Keller's complicity in the crime for which his partner is in jail.

Before George appears on the scene, in the second act, Ann learns from Sue that the neighbours still believe Keller to be guilty. Chris says, "Do you think I could forgive him if he'd done that thing"? (48) George comes to try to break up the marriage between Chris and Ann. He angrily tells them the story of the time when the defective cylinder heads were noticed by his father. George heard the story from his father whom he had, on an impulse, visited in jail, to inform him of the forthcoming marriage between Chris and Ann. George believes his father's story : that Keller had been informed of the defectives and had instructed Steve on the phone "to weld, cover up the cracks in any way he could, and ship them out". (57) Keller had promised to take the responsibility.

Keller had not gone to the factory that day on the pretext that he had a cold. In the court case, his alibi was not believed but in the appeal it was; so Steve was sentenced and Keller set free. There is a confrontation with Keller, and for a time George's faith in his father's version of the event is shaken by Keller's sympathetic and plausible interpretation of it. But the truth comes out eventually. Keller justifies his criminal conduct and says his subsequent lies were for the sake of Chris. Chris rejects that way of seeing it.

In Act 3 we learn that Chris had driven away after the argument with his father and the collapse of his world. Kate wants Keller to admit to Chris that he had done a 'terrible thing' and was ready to pay for it. She thinks that alone would bring Chris back to them. Keller feels this is outrageous, since everything he had done was for the family, or so he imagines. Kate points out that for Chris there's something larger than the family.

Ann enters when this argument is going on, and asks Kate to accept Larry's death so that Chris won't feel guilty about marrying her. Kate refuses. She insists that Larry may still be alive. Chris returns and announces his intention of going away for ever, without Ann. It is clear to Keller that his wife and son wish him to go to jail. Keller protests,  "Half the goddam country is gotta go if I go". (87) The implication is that criminal acts of the sort he had committed were quite common during the war, and were done for money. Ann hands over a letter Larry had written her on the day he died. Larry had read in the newspapers about Keller and Steve being convicted. "I can't bear to live any more",  he had written, ..."I'm going out on a mission in a few minutes. They'll probably report me missing". (88)

Keller hears Chris read out the letter and makes  a move that suggests he wants to give himself up and confess his guilt. Kate tries to dissuade him :

Mother.  Larry was your son too, wasn't he ? You know he'd  never tell you to do this.

Keller's reply is the major insight of the play and gives it its title.

Keller. Sure he was my son. But I think to him they were all my sons. And I guess, they were, I guess they were.

He goes into the house and a shot is heard. Kate says to Chris :

Mother. Don't take it on yourself. Forget now. Live.  (89-90)

The action in the play is developed through various stages comprising the beginning, the middle and the end. These stages are found in the plots of classical plays – that may be said to be found in the three Acts of the play respectively. The first Act contains the exposition of the situation, the second Act exhibits the complication and climax, and the third Act shows the action leading to the tragic end. Joe Keller's act of evading his responsibility in the decision to supply the defective equipment which causes his partner to go to prison, forms the central event of the play. The depiction of this event is preceded by the depiction of the situation and circumstances leading to it, through the speech of Joe Keller in the first Act. The consequences of the action concerned with this event are presented in the third Act. Thus, the playwright has built up a unified structure to tell his story. He presents various issues plainly so as to enable even a common reader to understand the ideas or meaning that are sought to be conveyed by him. As Nissim Ezekiel points out,

Every situation in a play by Miller develops till the issues it raises are unambiguously resolved. We are not left to figure out for ourselves the meaning and implications of the play. We know, more or less precisely, what the author has in mind. ³

All My Sons also reveals this quality of Miller's art of playwrighting.

The beginning of the play is very slow, and the action and the situation are presented by Miller in a leisurely manner. As Miller himself tells us,

The play begins in an atmosphere of undisturbed normality. Its first act was later called slow, but it was designed to be slow. It was made so that even boredom might threaten, so that when the first intimation of the crime is dropped a genuine horror might begin to move into the heart of the audience, a horror born of the contrast between the placidity of the civilization on view and the threat to it that a rage of conscience could create. ⁴

Gradually, as the action develops, the play gains speed and momentum, and events begin to take place at a faster pace. The play heads towards an inevitable and convincing end which consists of the suicide by Joe Keller. This suicide is a form of a self–punishment that Joe inflicts on himself for his guilt. The end makes Joe Keller a tragic figure which he could not have become if he had been allowed by the writer to go scot–free, as he seemed to be in the beginning of the play.

Keller's suicide is impelled by his awareness of his moral responsibility in the guilt, and is convincing both from the moral as well as the psychological points of view. Keller has to acknowledge that all youngmen fighting in the war were his sons, and realize that his crime in causing their death cannot be condoned. Morally speaking, he deserves no pity or forgiveness, to be able to continue to live in this world, and has to put an end to his life. Speaking psychologically, Joe Keller is so disturbed and burdened by the consciousness of his guilt that with the little sense of integrity or dignity he may have been left with, he can find suicide to be the only alternative implying a way out of his predicament. His suicide seems to be the only convincing device for bringing about the tragic end of the play.

Thus, All My Sons is a nicely built play with a well–knit structure through which its action, characters and events are presented in a dramatically effective and appealing manner. The form  of the play is immensely suited to the conveyance of Miller's ideas and the presentation of the moral and psychological conflict inherent in the situation. We may conclude this discussion of the form and the structure of All My Sons by quoting his own remarks in this matter : he writes -

The form of All My Sons is a reflection and an expression of several forces, of only some of which I was conscious. I desired above all to write rationally, to write so that I could tell the story of the play to even an unlettered person and spark a look of recognition on his face ... the only other course I had was the one I took - to seek cause and effect, hard actions, facts, the geometry of relationships, and to hold back any tendency to express an idea in itself unless it was literally forced out of a character's mouth; in other words, to let wonder rise up like a mist, a gas, a vapour from the gradual and remorseless crush of factual and psychological conflict.⁵

Joe Keller and Steve Deever were partners in a manufacturing firm. They were also neighbours because they lived in the same locality, quite close to each other. During the war they had got a contract from the Air Force to supply cylinder heads for the military aircraft. They had, accordingly, been supplying cylinder heads to the Air Force. On one occasion it so happened that a whole batch of cylinder heads, produced by them, were found to have developed cracks. It was evidently undesirable for the manufacturers to despatch those cylinder heads to the authorities. At that particular time, Joe Keller was at home and not in the factory; and it was Steve Deever who had discovered the cracks in the cylinder heads. Steve Deever telephoned to Joe Keller to inform him about the defect which had appeared in the cylinder heads. Joe Keller should have stopped Steve Deever from sending the defective cylinder heads to the military authorities. Left to himself, Steve Deever would most probably have withheld the defective cylinder heads. But Joe Keller felt that withholding those cylinder heads would mean a huge financial loss for the firm and, besides, there would be a lot of delay in manufacturing more cylinder heads while the authorities were sending urgent messages to the manufacturers to expedite the supply of cylinder heads. Joe Keller therefore asked Steve Deever on the telephone to weld the cracks in the cylinder heads, and then to despatch those cylinder heads to the authorities. Steve Deever asked if what would be the right course of action. Joe Keller replied that, as he was down with flu, he was unable to come personally to the factory but that he would take full responsibility for the supply of those cylinder heads after they had been repaired. In accordance with Joe Keller's instructions, Steve Deever despatched the defective cylinder heads to the army authorities even though both he and Joe Keller knew in their hearts that defective engine heads would put the lives of the air pilots in danger.

The defective cylinder heads actually proved dangerous. Aeroplanes fitted with those cylinder heads started crashing and, in a few days, as many as twenty–one aeroplanes had crashed and their pilots been killed. The authorities immediately carried out an inspection and came to the conclusion that the manufacturers had supplied defective cylinder heads. A prosecution was launched against both partners. In the court Steve Deever gave a full and truthful account of what had happened. But Joe Keller denied having given any instructions to Steve Deever on the telephone with regard to the defective cylinder heads. The court convicted both the partners and held them equally guilty. But Joe Keller filed an appeal against his conviction and his version of events, which had been disbelieved by the trial court, was accepted by the court of appeal; and he was therefore acquitted. In the court of appeal, Joe Keller had repeated his former plea, namely that he had nothing at all to do with the despatch of the defective cylinder heads because he had been ill on the day on which those cylinder heads had been despatched, and because he had not even gone to the factory on that particular day. Steve Deever's statement, that Joe Keller had given him telephonic instructions, was completely denied by Joe Keller. Thus, while Joe Keller had saved his skin, Steve Deever was sentenced to a long imprisonment. When the war ended, Joe Keller started manufacturing such items as pressure–cookers and washing–machines because military equipment was no longer needed and because, in any case, this particular firm would not have been given any further contracts for the supply of military equipment.

All these incidents had occurred during the war. About three and a half years have now passed since the end of the war. The play opens at this point of time. Joe Keller is a prosperous manufacturer running his business comfortably and continuing to live in the same town and in the same house. The Deever family, which also used to live close to Joe Keller's house, had vacated the house after Steve Deever's imprisonment. Steve Deever's wife, his son George, and his daughter Annie had shifted to New York and had been living there ever since the time of the imprisonment of Steve Deever. George and Annie had broken off their relationship with their father because of his public disgrace and because of his conviction on a charge of fraud. They have not even been on terms of correspondence with him. While they are living in New York, Steve has been spending his days in a prison in the town of Columbus.

During the war all men of a certain age–group had been required to report themselves to the army authorities for recruitment in the army because every American, according to the laws of the land, is required to serve in the army during a war if necessary. Both Joe Keller's sons, Larry and Chris, had gone to fight in the war, and so had Steve Deever's son, George, Larry, who had joined the army as an air pilot, had been reported as missing and had been presumed to be dead. Chris had distinguished himself as an army officer and had returned home, safe and sound. Likewise, George had earned several medals for bravery on the battlefield, and he too had returned home, safe and sound. After the war, George had studied law and, when the play opens, he is already a lawyer and has started practising as one in New York. Chris has joined his father in the factory. Joe Keller's elder son, Larry, had been in love with Steve Deever's daughter, Annie, and she had returned his love. In fact, Larry and Annie were engaged to each other and, if Larry had returned safe from the war, they would have got married. But, as Larry had been presumed to be dead, Annie has accepted the fact. Now it is Chris who wants to marry. Annie because he too had been in love with her. As Larry is no more in this world, Annie has agreed to marry Chris. A very important fact which has to be noted here is that, although everybody else believes Larry to be dead, Larry's mother, Kate Keller, persists in believing that Larry is alive somewhere and that one day he would return home. As she clings obstinately to this belief of hers, her husband Joe Keller and her son Chris do not make any special efforts to remove this notion from her head.

Although Kate Keller continues to believe that Larry is alive somewhere and that he would come back home one day, Chris and Joe had planted an apple–tree in the back–yard of their house as a kind of memorial to Larry. It is Sunday morning when the curtain rises (that is, when the action of the play begins). During the night a furious wind had been blowing and, as a result of the fury of the wind, the apple–tree had got broken. The upper part of the apple–tree now lies on the ground, while the stump stands in its place. Joe Keller feels that the sight of the broken tree would grieve his wife, Kate. But he does not know that Kate has already seen the broken tree and that she has been weeping over it. Here, of course, we find a contradiction. On the one hand Kate believes her son Larry to be alive; and, on the other, she begins to weep when she finds the memorial to Larry having been damaged by the wind. But Kate herself finds a certain meaning in the accident of the apple–tree having been damaged by the wind. During the same night, Annie had come from New York to the Keller home in response to an invitation from Chris. As already pointed out, Chris wants to marry Annie, and Annie is willing to marry him. However, when Chris tells his father of his intention to marry Annie, Joe Keller says that Chris's mother would not agree to this marriage because Chris's mother believes Larry to be still alive and because Annie was engaged to marry Larry. Annie's arrival has already created a suspicion in Kate's mind and, when she learns of Chris's intention to marry the girl, she tells her husband that she would not allow Chris to marry her. Kate goes so far as to say to her husband that Annie herself would not agree to marry Chris because Annie too believes that Larry is still alive. However, here Kate is thoroughly mistaken because, as already pointed out above, Annie is perfectly willing to marry Chris and because Annie is fully convinced that Larry is dead. Kate, in her talk with her husband, reinforces her argument by saying that Annie had come on the very night that the apple–tree had been damaged by the wind. Besides, Annie has been given the same room to sleep in, which used to be Larry's room. Kate finds a hidden meaning in these coincidences.

There is now a confrontation between Chris and his mother Kate. Annie too joins the discussion which takes place. Both Chris and Annie now express their firm view that Larry is dead, but Kate still expresses the view that Larry is alive. Kate says that certain things have to happen and that certain other things can never happen. The sun has to rise, and it therefore rises. The rising of the sun everyday shows that there is a God in this world. But there are certain things which can never happen, and the death of Larry is one such event, says Kate.

It is now fully agreed between Chris and Annie that they would get married. Chris kisses Annie for the first time and feels very happy about it. At the same time he experiences a certain embarrassment in his successful love for Annie. He tells Annie that his experience in the course of the war had made him believe that there is such a thing in this world as human fellowship or human comradeship. During the war, men had made sacrifices for their country, and men had stood by one another. But now, after the war is over, Chris finds that the world remains unchanged and that the people are as selfish, greedy, and money–minded as they used to be before. Chris goes on to say that he finds that the same competitive struggle is going on among the people, and that the same mad race is continuing. After witnessing this state of affairs he feels guilty when he signs a cheque to draw money from a bank or when he looks at his new car, or when he thinks of marrying Annie. What he means to say is that he does not think himself entitled to any of the comforts, luxuries, and privileges which are available to him. He means that he has a sense of guilt about enjoying those privileges when the people in general spend their lives, trying to do the maximum damage to one another's material interests. However, Annie tries to soothe Chris's feelings, and asks him to shed his sense of guilt. Chris then feels cheerful and tells Annie that he would earn a lot of money for her sake, and that he would, in fact, make a fortune for her.

Just then there is a telephone call from George for Annie. Annie is surprised to learn that George had gone to see their father in prison that very morning, and that George is now on the telephone to speak to her. George tells her on the telephone that he is still in Columbus where he has seen his father for the first time since he was imprisoned. He also tells her that he is now coming over to meet the Keller family. Everybody is surprised to learn that George is coming. In fact, Kate feels deeply perturbed by the forthcoming visit of George. She begins to think that George might be wanting to re–open the whole case about the supply of defective cylinder heads to the Air–Force and about Joe Keller having been exonerated. The fact is that Kate also knows her husband's guilt. She knows that Keller had told Steve on the telephone that he (Keller) would take the whole responsibility for the supply of those defective cylinder heads. She therefore now thinks that George might try to create trouble for Joe Keller.

George now arrives from Columbus where he had met his father in prison that very morning. His father had told him certain facts which had surprised him and which have brought him to this place. George's father had told him the real facts about the case in which he had been convicted and Keller had been exonerated. Having learnt from his father that the actual responsibility for the supply of the defective cylinder heads what that of Keller, George is now determined to take up the matter with the Keller family and to expose Keller who, after having instructed Steve Deever to despatch the defective cylinder heads to the army authorities and having told Steve that he would take full responsibility for the supply of those cylinder heads, had subsequently declared in the court that it was his partner, Steve Deever, who was responsible for the supply of the defective equipment, and that he (Keller) had nothing to do with the affair because on the day of the despatch of that equipment he (Keller) was lying sick at his residence. George now take up the matter with the Keller family, and he discovers the weak point in Keller's position when Kate happens to say that her husband had never been sick during the last many years. George asks how, then, Keller had declared in the open court that he was lying sick at his residence on the day when the defective cylinder heads had been despatched to the army authorities. Now Chris, who had previously believed his father to be absolutely innocent in the whole affair, also becomes suspicious. As for George, he now feels convinced of Keller's guilt and therefore fully convinced of his own father's innocence. He now tells his sister Annie that he would not allow her to marry Chris. He tells Annie that he cannot allow her to marry the son of the man who had ruined her father and taken away everything which his father had possessed. Annie, however, is not convinced by her brother's arguments and asks him to leave her to decide her own future.

Kate wants that Annie should go away with her brother because Kate does not want Annie to marry Chris. Kate still believes that Larry is alive, and she therefore wants that Annie should wait for Larry's return. Kate desires that Annie should marry Larry to whom she had been engaged. When Chris resists his mother's wish in this matter on the ground of his belief that Larry is dead, Kate says that, in the first place, Larry is alive and that, in the second place, Larry, if dead, had been killed by his father. As Kate is of the firm view that a son cannot be killed by his father, so Larry must be alive. Such is Kate's logic. Keller says that Larry could not have been killed through engine failure because his plane was not equipped with any of the cylinder heads which his factory had supplied to the Air Force. Here Chris's suspicion about his father's role in the supply of defective cylinder heads is confirmed; and he asks if Keller was responsible for the deaths of the other  pilots if not for the death of his son Larry. Keller replies that Kate is entirely mistaken in her belief that he had anything to do with the deaths of the other air pilots or with the death of his own son, Larry. But now Chris has begun to think that his father is telling lies and that his father is actually responsible for what had happened to those air pilots who had got killed. Keller then has no alternative but to come out with the truth. He admits his responsibility in the matter and says that, if those defective cylinder heads had not been despatched, and if they had been discarded as useless, the factory would have been ruined, and he would have become bankrupt. He says that it was absolutely essential that the factory should continue its operations and that those defective cylinder heads should be repaired and then supplied. He had, of course, visualized the possibility that the defective cylinder heads might, even after repairs, cause the aeroplanes to crash. Chris feels shocked to hear his father's defence of himself and asks in which kind of world his father lives. He bitterly scolds his father for having endangered the lives of so many air pilots and having caused their deaths by his folly. Chris now feels utterly miserable, and faces an agonizing dilemma. He does not know what he ought to do under the circumstances.

After meditating upon his position Chris now decides to leave his parents and his home and go somewhere else to take up a job and earn his own living. He thinks that it would be a crime on his part to continue living on the profits of his father's business which had been thriving on his father's fraud in having supplied defective cylinder heads to the Air Force during the war. When Annie offers to go with him, he says that he cannot take her with him because she would never forget his father's guilt and would therefore never enjoy any peace of mind in his (Chris's) company. Annie thereupon says that Chris should do what his sense of duty demands. But Kate's objection to Annie's marrying Chris still remains because Kate has not ceased to believe that Larry is still alive and would one day come back. Now Annie produces undeniable evidence of Larry being dead. She shows Kate a letter which she had received from Larry and which Larry had written to her on the last day of his life. In this letter, Larry had written that he had come to know from newspaper reports that his father and Annie's father had been convicted of a charge of having deliberately supplied defective cylinder heads which had then been responsible for the deaths of a large number of air pilots. Larry had further written that he had begun to feel so ashamed of his father's criminal action that he did not wish to live any longer in this world. He had then written in the same letter that he would be flying that day on a special mission and that, in the course of that flight, he would allow his aeroplane to crash in order to end his life. Kate feels deeply shocked to go through this letter written by Larry to Annie. Now Kate can no longer maintain that Larry is still alive and would come back one day.

When Keller hears the contents of this letter, he too feels ashamed because Larry's suicide was due to Larry's sense of shame at his father's action in having supplied defective cylinder heads to the Air Force and thus causing the deaths of as many as twenty–one air pilots. Keller's argument that he had done everything for the sake of his family and that even his action in supplying defective cylinder heads to the Air Force had been due to his anxiety not to ruin his family financially now no longer holds good even in his own eyes. Chris now asks his father what he proposes to do in the light of Larry's letter. Keller says that he understands what Chris wants him to do. He then asks Chris to get the car ready so that Chris can take him to the police headquarters where he would admit his guilt and would offer himself for a retrial. Keller then goes into the house to get dressed. Kate tries her utmost to stop both Chris and Keller from going to the police, but Chris says that nothing would now stop either him or his father from taking that step. Just then a shot is heard from inside the house. Evidently Keller, instead of accompanying Chris to the police headquarters, has killed himself. Thus Keller has himself passed a sentence of death against himself, and has carried out that sentence also. Chris tells his mother that it was not his intention that his father should kill himself. His mother says that Chris should not blame himself for his father's suicide but should now start a new life. Here the play ends but it is of course understood that Chris would now start a new life with Annie.

Notes

¹ Arthur, Miller, All My Sons, ed. Nissim Ezekiel (Madras : Oxford University Press, 1972) 6.

² Arthur, Miller, Collected Plays, Indian edn. (New Delhi : Allied Publishers, 1973) 8.

³ Arthur, Miller, All My Sons, ed. Nissim Ezekiel (Madras : Oxford University Press, 1972) 91–92.

⁴ A. Robert, Martin, The Creative Experience of Arthur Miller : An Interview, Educational Theatre Journal, 21 Oct. 1969.

⁵ A. Robert, Martin, rev. of Arthur Miller : Tragedy and Commitment, Michigan Quack Review, 8 Sept. 1969 : 25.

All the textual quotations have been taken from Arthur Miller,                  All My Sons, ed. Nissim Ezekiel (Madras : Oxford University Press, 1972).

The Correct Use of Tenses

2:1:1 Indefinite Tense: It is the simplest application of the main verb. In all the three tenses the use of indefinite tense is conspicuous for the different modes of the relationship between time and action. The Indefinite Tense denies the symmetry or similarity of the treatment of the action along time between the present and past and between the present and future.  In the Present Indefinite Tense, the action is always general and spread along an indefinitely long time span whereas in the past and future indefinite, the action is always specific and is defined along a given point of time.  Special care should be taken to avoid the confusion in the nature of the action in the Present Indefinite and Past and Future Indefinite.
2:1:2 Present Indefinite Tense: In the Present Indefinite Tense, the action is never realized along a single point of time but it is spread along an indefinitely long time span.
                           
The most noticeable aspect of the application of Present Indefinite Tense is that action is never specific or particular and it is not realized along a specific point of time. Thus we always apply the tense when we use this specific type of action


Examples;
He always meets me on the way.
She often comes to meet my mother.
They fight with one another
The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
People love pets and play with them.
Sincerity always pays in the long run.
Honesty pays.
Lawyers go to court everyday.
My father goes to temple everyday.
Mr. John is a doctor. He takes good care of his patients.
A close survey of the sentences given above makes it clear that the action in all these sentences is general and it does not specify a particular moment of time.  In the first sentence the speakers tells about something that takes place on his way to office or any other place. In the second sentence, also the speaker tells about the routine of some woman who is a regular visitor of his mother. In the third sentence the speaker talks about the habit or general behavior of a group of persons. The fourth sentence is a universal truth and no specific moment can be associated with this action. Similarly fifth, sixth and seventh sentences are general or moral truth about a particular quality.  In the eighth sentence, the speaker is talking about the routine of the lawyer that is spread along an indefinite time span. In the ninth sentence, the speaker talks about the routine of his father. The tenth sentence, like the eights tell about the profession of the subject.
It is closely observed that the action in all these sentences is not specific but it is general and it does not specify a particular moment of time.
Thus the Present Indefinite Tense is used when;
The action is not particular but general.
It is spread along an indefinitely long time span.

2:1:2 The Applications of the Present Indefinite:  With these two parameters given, we shall no proceed to classify the areas of application of the Present Indefinite Tense.
Routine: We always express a routine in the Present Indefinite Tense as it doesn’t have any specific moment but is always spread along an indefinitely long time span.
Examples:
I get up at five every morning.
I leave for college at nine in the morning.
He visits my place every Sunday.
Ramesh comes back home from the office late in the evening.
My father goes to bed early.

Hobbies and Habits: Habits are also expressed in Present Indefinite Tense as the action of a hobby of habit is not realized at a given particular moment of time.  The action in either case is general and is spread along an indefinitely long time span.

Examples:
He collects stamps.
He comes late everyday.
Vijay plays on guitar.
He reads before he goes to sleep.
He spends hours in the coffee house.

General Truth: The general truth is the expression of some common human nature or of the world in general, thus it also has no specific moment of time to define its existence, thus we always use Present Indefinite Tense to express it.
               Examples:
Dogs bark at night.
Indians enjoy every festival.
Christians go to Church and Hindus go to temple.
The computer helps us with memory and speed.
God helps those who help themselves.

Natural Phenomena: The cycle of nature is generally a timeless activity and thus can not be defines in terms of one specific moment of time. Hence we always express  a natural
phenomenon in the Present Indefinite Tense.

Examples:
The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
The earth revolves round the sun.
All the planets revolve round the sun.
It rains heavily in the month of July in India.
We inhale Oxygen and exhale Carbon Dioxide.

Moral Truth; All the moral instructions are expressed in the Present Indefinite Tense as they don’t have any specific moment to define the action but the action is spread along an indefinitely long time span.
Examples;
Sincerity pays in the long run.
Honesty always pays.
We pay for our sins.
2:1:3: Time referents in the Present Indefinite Tense;
It is clear from the above discussion that the Present Indefinite Tense does not have any specific moment to define the action, thus to justify the use of the  Present Indefinite Tense, we make use of time referents that tell us about the frequency of the action in the given time span along which the action is spread.
Some common time referents are the following;
Generally or usually is used to denote some action in most situations;
He generally avoids my company.
Frequently denotes the good frequency of the action.
I frequently meet him on the way to college.
Regularly is used when the action follows a definite pattern of occurrence.
Vijay takes exercise regularly.
Always is used when the action takes place all the time or every time.
He always misspells my name
She always comes late and makes excuses.
Sometimes is used when the action takes place on some occasions not always or frequently.
Sometime he teaches well.
Often is used in sense of many times during a give time span.
He often troubles me with new demands.
I often go to cinema hall to watch the movie.
Rarely, hardly and seldom denote very low frequency of the action
He rarely comes to my place.
I hardly take pains to meet him.
Barking dogs seldom bite.
Never is used to denote zero frequency of the action.
I never take non vegetarian food.
He never comes on time.

2;1;4; Structure of the Present Indefinite:
The structure of the Present Indefinite Tense has two different verb forms. The first form of the Main Verb is used when the Subject is in First Person Singular Number, First Person Plural Number, Second Person (Singular Number and Plural Number) and Third Person Plural Number. We use first form of the Main Verb with s or es when the Subject is Third Person Singular Number.

 2;1;5; The present Indefinite Tense generally serves to illustrate some idea, quality or some such fact expressed in the Auxiliary Verb;
Examples:
He is very punctual. He always comes on time.
Vijay is not reliable. He avoids doing work.
He is very honest. I rely on him completely on money matters.
He is very naughty. He makes mischief and runs away.
Ramesh is very cunning. I avoid going with him anywhere.
Vikrant is very serious. He does not like roaming about with friends.
She is my sister’s good friend. She visits my house frequently.
Indians are generally very religious. They respect every religion.
Cricket is very famous in India. People watch the game with great passion and involvement.
The pet is the most important member of my family. We take good care of it.
Sachin is the god of Cricket. Youngsters look at him for inspiration.
He is a committed teacher. He delivers his hundred percent.
I am a teetotaler. I never take alcoholic drinks.
He is very fickle minded. No one relies on him.

2:1:6 Past and Future Indefinite Tenses:
The Past and Future Indefinite Tenses unlike the Present Indefinite Tenses give us a single action in the past or in the future respectively. It is note worthy that the action in the Past and Future Indefinite Tenses is always specific and is locatable on a particular point of time. In the Past Indefinite the action is located on a particular point of time in the past and in the Future Indefinite, the action is located on a particular point of time in the future.
The most noticeable aspect of the Past and Future Indefinite is that the action is always specific; it is never general and it gives a single specific action in the past or in future.                                                                                            
Present
 It is clear from the above diagram that the Past Indefinite gives us a single specific action in the past, here represented by the cross inside the circle.
2: 1:7: The Structure of the Past Indefinite:

It is also noticeable that the action of the Past Indefinite is always specific, thus it mostly gives some specific representation of some general action or it sometimes provides and exception to some general behavior.
Examples:
He always comes on time but today he came late by half an hour.
He understands things well but today he failed to concentrate.
She never pays attention to my advice, but today she responded well.
He often meets me on the way back home. Yesterday also I met him.
I expect him to stand by my side and he also cooperates me to the maximum.
They celebrate every festival with great pomp. This year they celebrated Deepawali with crackers and loud music.
I never go to the office at night, but yesterday I went there for some urgent work.
Joseph loves to play on guitar, but today he is on table.
He is a good teacher of English but today he taught a new subject.
He always performs well but today he disappointed his audience.
It is remarkable that the Future Indefinite Tense unlike the Present Indefinite, always gives us a single specific action in the future.


2: 1:8: The Structure of the Future Indefinite:


Examples:
I will see him tomorrow on his birthday.
He is very arrogant. He will not come tomorrow for the meeting.
They are all good players. They will win the match.
He usually comes on time but today he will come late because of some urgent work.
He is fond of performing new experiments. He will do something different this time.
They are determined to win the series and they will.
She will join us within a week or so.
They are good students. They will do well in the examination.
Joseph is an upcoming star of Indian Cricket. Soon he will play for the country.
He is in deep distress but he will come out of it if we support him.

2: 1:9: Conditional Sentences with Indefinite Tense:
If there are two sentences A and B in Future Indefinite connected with each other in cause and effect relation;
He will come to pick me up.
I will go with him to attend the party.
If we combine these two sentences in one structure, we write the condition in the Present Indefinite and the result or consequence in the Future Indefinite.
We write;
If he comes to pick me up, I will go with him.
Examples;
If he plays well, the team will win the match.
If my friend comes to pick me up, I will go and attend the party.
Wherever you go, I will follow you.
Whenever they call me, I will attend them.
I know even if I don’t permit him, he will do the same.

2: 1:10: Continuous Tense; The Continuous Tense gives us the continuity of the action at the given point of time in the present, past or the future.
Examples;
I am making notes for my students.
When he rang me up, I was taking dinner.
He is taking ice cream and talking to his friends.
He was fighting with his parents when I reached his house.
I shall be leaving for Bhopal tomorrow by Janshtabdi Express.
The above examples make clear the use of continuous tense. In the first and third sentences, the speaker talks about the continuity of the action at the present moment. In the second and fourth the speaker informs about the continuity of the action at the given points of time in the past. In the fifth sentence, the speaker tells us about the continuity of the action at a given point of time in the future. It is important to note that the in the present continuous tense, the moment of conversation is obviously referred to whereas in the second and fourth sentences, the use of the Past Indefinite, gives us the precise moment of the continuity of the action.
2: 1:11: Present Continuous Tense; It gives us the continuity of the action at the present moment, that is the moment of conversation, the moment when the speech is being delivered or the sentence is written.
There are two main points in relation to the application of the Present Continuous Tense;
The Present Continuous Tense gives us a single specific action at the present moment.
The action is located precisely at the present moment.
It is generally the illustration of some general action expressed in Present IndefiniteTense.






Present Continuous Tense

It is clear from the above diagram that the long time span of the Present Indefinite Tense is converged to a single moment of the present thus the action becomes specific and is located at a precise moment of time.
It is noticeable that the action is not spread along a long time span but is defined along a fixed point of time.
2: 1:12: The structure of the Present Continuous Tense;      

2: 1:13: Past and Future Continuous Tense;
The Past and Future Continuous Tense give us the continuity of the action at the given point of time in the past of future respectively. It is noticeable that we always need to specify that point of time of the continuity of the action.
 
In the picture given above, the cross in the circle shows the single action in the past whereas the arrow illustrates the continuity of the action at the given point of time in the past.
It is further noticeable that time is not always denoted in terms of clock measurements but mostly we denote time with the help of the Past Indefinite. It is to remind you that the Past Indefinite represents a single action in the past thus the single action also represents the specific moment of time when the action is performed.
Examples:
When he rang me up, I was taking dinner.
Yesterday when you came, I was watering plants.
I didn’t talk to him because yesterday when I saw him he was talking to his friend and I didn’t disturb him.
I came back because when I reached the office, he was shouting on his subordinates.
He was offering prayers to the Almighty, when he was hit by a gangster.
The above examples put forth a distinct role played by the action in the Past Indefinite. It has been discussed earlier that the action of the verb is realized chiefly along the axis of time, thus the action in the Past Indefinite clearly represents the specific moment of time and the Past Continuous Tense shows the continuity of the action at that point of time which is represented the action in the Past Indefinite.

2: 1:14: the Structure of the Past Continuous:


2: 1:15; Future Continuous Tense:  Future Continuous Tense is used to denote the continuity of the action at the give point of time in the future.
Examples:  I shall be leaving for Indore by Narbada Kutub Express.
It is important that the leaving for Indore is the main action of the of sentence and the reference to conveyance ( Narbada- Kutub Express) is the representation of the specific moment of time on which the action shows continuity.


2: 1:16; The Structure of the Future Continuous Tense:


2: 1:17: Perfect Tense: The Perfect Tens gives us the completeness of the action at a given point of time in the past, present or the future. It is used to denote that the action at the given point of time is complete.
2;1;18; Present Perfect Tense; Present Perfect Tense gives us the completeness of the action at the present moment; the moment when the conversation is going on.
Examples;
1 ) Raja has completed the home work and he is not ready to leave.
 2) He is not at home. He has just left for the college.
3) Uma has prepared the meals. Now she is chatting with her neighbor.
4) All the teachers have finished the syllabus and the students now come to college only for difficulties.
5) Sanjay has discussed the problem with the Director. He is now ready to put the instructions into practice.
The above quoted examples make the idea of the completeness of the action clear before us. In the first sentence, the subject (Raja) being ready to leave shows the present moment and at that point of time, the completeness of the action of completing the homework is suggested. In the second sentence, the speaker is probably at his friend’s place and this moment defines the present and at this moment the action of his friend’s leaving home for college is complete. In the third sentence, the time of Uma’s gossiping her neighbours denote the present moment and at that point of time, the action of preparing the meals is complete. Similarly in the fourth sentence, the time of students’ coming to college, gives us the present moment and the action of the finishing the syllabus is expressed in Present Perfect Tense because the speaker has to show the completeness of the action. Similarly in the fifth sentence, Samjay’s readiness to put the Director’s instructions into practice is the desired present and at this moment denoting present, the action of discussing the problem with the director is complete.




2;1;19;The Structure of the Present Perfect Tense;




2;1;20; the Past Indefinite and the Present Perfect Tense;
In order to write and speak correct English, it is very important to understand the distinction between Past Indefinite and Present Perfect. It is observed that people always use one in place of the other.
Past Indefinite, as discussed above, gives us a single action in the past whereas the Present Perfect gives us the completeness of the action at the present moment or phase.
Let us consider the following examples carefully.
I took lunch at 1 pm.
Mohan celebrated his 20 birthday on 10 July 2011.
Yesterday I watched that movie.
The first sentence is a single action that took place at 1 pm, probably a hour before the moment when the speaker is informing about this action. Now the same action can be expressed in Present Perfect when the action has some present value or some validity at the present moment. Supposing that the moment of speech is 2 pm, then the action can be expressed in Present Perfect if the same action has a present value. Further we can imagine the situation that the speaker of the line is offered a loaf of bread and the speaker refuses because he is not hungry then he can use Present Perfect to say the same thing.
Vijay; Would you like to have some snacks?
Ajay; No I have taken lunch.
Amar; Shall we have a cup of tea?
Ramesh; No, I have just taken.
Similarly the third sentence gives us the information that the speaker went to see the movie a day before. But if the same person has to inform the same in relation to the present moment, he would use Present Perfect.
I have seen the movie and I don’t wish to see it again.
The second sentence is another fine example illustrating the difference between Past Indefinite and Present Perfect. The second given above gives us a single event in the past that Mohan celebrated his 20 birthday on 10 July. If we examine the sentence at the present moment we can use Present Perfect and say; Mohan has celebrated his 20th birthday chiefly because the action has its present value.
Let us take another example;
Mohan celebrated his 19th birthday on 10 July 2010.
Now this action has no present value because Mohan has celebrated 20th birthday thus the action of celebrating 19th birthday has no present value. And the action of celebrating 20th birthday has a present value because Mohan is in his 21st year and until he celebrates his 21st birthday, the action will have its present value.
Mohan has celebrated his 20th birthday gives us the completeness of the action of celebrating his 20th birthday.
2;1;21; Past Perfect Tense: Past Perfect Tense gives us the completeness of the action at a given point of time in the past. It is important to note that the given point of time may not always be expressed in digits but the Past Indefinite Tense, which gives us the single action in the past, also serves to denote the specific moment of time where the completeness of the action is denoted.

2;1;22; The Structure of the Past Perfect Tense:

2;1;23; Past Indefinite and Past Perfect; Past Perfect Tense always gives us the completeness of the action at a given point of time in the past and the Past Indefinite Tense is used to denote the that point of time of the past which marks the completeness of the action.
Examples;
Read the following examples carefully.
When he rang me up, I had taken lunch.
He had left of home when I reached the college.
He had decided to resign much before he was asked to do so.
She permitted me to go there but I had changed my mind.
He called me back but I had joined elsewhere.
In the sentences given above there are two parts one that shows the completeness of the action and the other which denotes a specific point of time in terms of a single action in the past.  In the first sentence, the completeness of the action of taking lunch is suggested  at the point of time when he rang me up. In the second sentence, the completeness of the action of leaving home is suggested at the point of time when I reached the college. Similarly in the third sentence, the speaker is instructed to resign and the point of time is little before this and the completeness of the action of deciding to resign is suggested at that point of time. In the fourth sentence, the action of permitting to go suggests denotes the point of time and the action of changing the mind is complete at that point of time in the past. In the fifth sentence, the action in past indefinite shows the point of time and at that point of time, joining elsewhere is complete at that point of time.
The above discussion leads to one important rule which should always be kept in mind. Suppose there are two sentences a) and b) both are in Past Indefinite. A) takes place first and B) follows it. Now if we combine these two sentences, we always write the first sentence (the older one) in the Past Perfect and B) in Past Indefinite.
Examples;
The patient died
The Doctor came
In this example the sentence a) takes place first and b) takes place second. Imagine that the patient died at 9;05 am in the morning and the doctor came at 9;15 ie after ten minutes of the death of the patient. Obviously when we combine the two sentences into one, we write the second sentence in the Past Perfect and first in the Past Indefinite.
When the doctor came the patient had died.
Let us take another example;
The train left the platform.
I reached the station.
In this example, a) takes place first and b) follows it. Suppose the train left the platform at 3;00pm sharp and I reached the station at 3;05 pm, thus when we combine these two sentences, we keep a) in the Past Perfect and b) in the Past Indefinite.
When I reached the station, the train had left the station.
Let us consider some more examples;
He inquired about the task.
I had finished it.
When he inquired about the task, I had finished it.
He reached the college at 9; 35 am.
The examination began at 9; 30 am
When he reached the college, the examination had begun.
I finished my dinner at 7;00 pm and I was waiting for him.
He reached my place at 7; 15 pm
When he reached my place, I had finished my dinner and I was waiting for him.
The rescue workers jumped into the river to save him.
He died of drowning.
When the rescue workers jumped into the river to save him, he had died of drowning.
The parents decided to take him to Mumbai for consulting the doctor.
He began to recover from the disorder.
When the parents decided to take him to Mumbai for the consulting the expert, he had begun to recover.
He requested me to land him one thousand rupees.
I spent all my money on purchasing clothes.
When he requested me to land him one thousand rupees, I had spent all my money on purchasing clothes.
It is often observed that the students while combining the two sentences rarely pay attention to time order and write them in the Past Perfect Tense only which is incorrect. If the two sentenced being combined are in occur at two different points of time, then in order to combine the two, we keep the time order in mind. If the two interrelated actions are realized at two different points of time then we write the older even in the Past Perfect and the one that takes place later in the Past Indefinite.  Both the sentences are written in Past Indefinite only when the actions in those two sentences are independent and have no direct interrelation with each other.
Let us consider the following sentence;
He came he saw, he conquered.
I went there, met the concerned person and came back.
 He saw me and turned his face away.
He didn’t invite me but I went to him and greeted him on the auspicious occasion.
He took the exam but failed.
A close scrutiny of the above sentences makes it clear that the actions in the above sentences simply follow a time order. They are connected to each other only in chronological terms and order thus we use Past Indefinite for writing both. In the first sentence, (from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar) gives three different actions in precise chronology. In this sentence, we don’t write one in relation to the other. Similarly in the third sentence, there are three actions in precise chronology. In these sentences we don’t examine the status of one action in relation to the other. Same is the case with the fourth and fifth sentence. In these sentences also the actions bear only a chronological relation and we don’t assess the status of one the relation to other or others. In the fourth sentence, there are three action, first of not inviting the speaker, second of going to him and third of greeting him and they are connected with each other only chronologically. Likewise in the fifth sentence, there are two actions; taking the exam and failing it. They are connected with each other only in the chronological manner.
2;1;24 Future Perfect Tense; Future Perfect  Tense gives us the completeness of the action at the given point of time in the future.  The structure of the sentence has two main parts; one is the reference to the point of time in the future and the other is the completeness of the action at that point of time.




2;1;25; The Structure of the Future Perfect;

It is noticeable that the reference to time is not always given in terms of clock time but often we denote time in terms of some action in the future which in combination with the Future Perfect Tense is always written in the Present Indefinite.
Examples; Let us examine the following examples carefully;
 I will have completed the work before next morning.
 He will have returned me the amount before the weekend.
Mahesh will have taken the amount before Mukesh runs away from the town.
It is important to note that the point of time in the Future is not denoted in Future Indefinite Tense. We make use of the Present Indefinite to denote the point of time in the future.
Let us consider the following example;
        1) He will ask me about the progress of the work.
I will have completed the work before it.
In the two sentences given above, the first sentence gives us a point of time in the future and the second sentence gives us the completeness of the action at that given point of time.
I will have completed the work before he asks me about the progress.
2;1;26; Perfect Continuous Tense; Perfect Continuous Tense is characterized by two main features defining the action of the verb in this tense.
The action is always in form of a process spread along a given time period.
At the given point of time, a part of the action is complete and the actions shows continuity at that given point of time in the past, present of the future.
2;1;27; Present Perfect Continuous; Present Perfect Tense gives us the completeness of the action at the present moment (or phase) and the action shows continuity at the present moment.
The tense is characterized chiefly in terms of two main features;
The action is always in form of a process.
A part of the action is complete at the present moment (or phase) and the action shows continuity at the present moment.
Examples;
I have been residing in Jabalpur since birth.
I have been teaching in Gyan Ganga College of Technology for last five years.
She has been giving dance performances since childhood.
Vikram has been working in this college since inception.
Sachin has been playing for India since 1989.
It is clear from the above given examples that the behavior of the Present Perfect Continuous Tense has two main features of defining significance; the completeness of the action at the present moment and the continuity of the action at the same point. In the first example, a part of the action of residing in Jabalpur since birth is complete and the action shows continuity at the present moment also. Imagine that the age of the speaker is 30 years, then he has completed 30 years of the same action and at the present moment also the action shows continuity ie the speaker is residing in Jabalpur at that the present moment.  In the second sentence also a part of the action ie is the phase of five years of the action is complete and the speaker is continuing with the same action of teaching in Gyan Ganga College of Technology. Similarly in the third sentence also the a part of the action since childhood of the dancer is complete and there is continuity of the action at that the present moment. In the fourth sentence also a part of the action- from the inception of the college to the present date is complete and the action shows continuity at the present moment that is the moment of speech. In the last example again a part of the action from 1089 to the moment of speech, the present moment is complete and the action shows continuity at the same moment.
2;1;28; The Structure of the Present Perfect Continuous;

2;1;29; Past Perfect Continuous;  The Past Perfect Tense has two salient features of defining significance;
The action in the Past Perfect Tense is always in form of a process.
At a given point of time in the past, a part of the action is complete and the action shows continuity at that point of time in the past.


Examples;
I had been teaching in University Teaching Department from 1990 to 1996.
For years, he had been absconding but ultimately he was arrested.
He had been attending his father very sincerely until he died.
I had been watching movies until 1985.
I had been waiting for you for the whole day yesterday but you neither came nor rang me up.
In the examples given above we find that action has both the defining features; the completeness of the action at a given point of time in the past and the continuity of the action at the same moment. In the first sentence, the action begins at 1990 and the in 1996, a part of the action (of 6 years) is complete and at 1996 the action shows continuity. In the second sentence, the person under discussion, completes a part of the action and shows continuity until his arrest. In the third sentence also the action has same behavior,  the speaker shows continuity of the action at the given point of time (1985)  and, from beginning to the given point of time a part of the action is complete.  The fifth sentence also has the same behavior of the action. From morning to the end point, a part of the action is complete and the continuity of the action is suggested at the end point.
2;1;30; Structure of the Past Perfect Continuous;



2;1;31; Future Perfect Continuous;  Future Perfect Continuous Tense has the following two main features;
The action begins either at the present phase or moment or at some point of time in the past.
At a given point of time in the future, a part of the action is complete and the action shows continuity at that point of time.
It is important to note that the action may be in continuity in the present and may be extended to some point of time in the future or it may begin at a point of time in the future and end at some other point of time in the future only. The most important aspect of the Future Perfect Continuous Tense is that at the given point of time in the future, a part of the action is complete and at that point of time in the future, the action shows continuity.




2;1;32; Structure of the Future Perfect Continuous;
 



Examples;
I will have been teaching you until the semester exams.
They will have been working on the project by the end of next week.
We will have been working until the body permits.
Raja will have been playing till 5 pm.
Sachin will have been representing the country until next world cup.
The above examples make clear the use of Future Perfect Continuous tense.  In the first example, the speaker, who is probably the teacher, tells his students about the continuity of the action till some point of time in the future which is the semester exam. In the second example, the speaker informs about the group of persons working on the project till the end of the next week. By the given time, a part of the action is complete and the action shows continuity at that point of time. In the third sentence, the speaker claims the continuity of the action until he remains healthy which is a reference to the future and at that point of time, a part of the action will be complete and the action shows continuity. In the fourth sentence, the speaker tells about the subject (Raja) who performs the action in form of process till 5 pm, which is the given point of time in the future. Similarly in the last sentence, the speaker tells about Sachin and his action. The next world cup is the point of time in the future and by then, a part of the action will be complete and the action shows the continuity of the action. It is further noticeable that the point of time in the future is always suggested in terms of some action but we always make use of the Present Tense to denote the future.

2;1;33; Perfect Continuous and Continuous Tense; it is commonly observed that the people often use Continuous Tense in place of the Perfect Continuous Tense which from the point of view of grammar is incorrect. It should always be kept in mind that the Continuous tense always gives us the continuity of the action at a given point of time in the past, present or future, whereas, Perfect Continuous Tense, always gives is a process with part completeness and continuity both realized at one point of time in the past, present of the future.
Examples;
I was waiting for you for the whole day yesterday. (wrong)
I have been waiting for you for the whole days yesterday. (Correct)
I am teaching in Gyan Ganga College of Technology since 2006. (wrong)
I have been teaching in Gyan Ganga College of Technology since 2006.
I will be helping you until you need my help. (wrong)
I will have been teaching you until you need my help. Correct)
2;1;34; Use of since and for;  Since and for are two main ways to denote time in the  Perfect and Perfect Continuous Tense.
Since is used when the initial point of the action is given and the action is stretchable to the present moment. It is noticeable that the action is case of the use of since is always stretchable to the present moment, thus since is always used in the Present Perfect of Present Perfect Continuous Tense.
Examples;
I have been in the college since 9;30 am
He has been playing for India since 1989.
Mohan has been a good cricketer since school days.
I have been teaching since 1990.
Since time immemorial, people have been going to the Confluence for a holy dip.
In the examples given above an attempt has been made to make clear the use of since for denoting time. In the first sentence, 9;30 am is the initial point of the action and it is stretched to the present moment when the sentence is being spoken. The second sentence informs us about the player who had been playing for India. It is noticeable that the year 1989 marks the initial point of the action and the action is stretchable to the present moment i.e, a part of the action from 19889 to the present day is complete and at the present moment the action shows continuity.  In the third sentence the use of Present Perfect Tense shows the completeness of the action which begins in the school days of the subject. In the fourth sentence, 1990 is the initial point of the action and at the present moment, a part of the action is complete and it shows continuity as well. In the fifth sentence, the initial point has unknown antiquity and the action with part completeness is going on even in the present phase.
For denotes time in a package or bundle form. We use for when the time is denote in a package form of two years, five months, whole day, six hours etc.  it is also noticeable that in case of for, time is denote in a package form, thus for can be used in any of the tenses viz a viz past, present or future of perfect and perfect continuous.
Examples;
I have been in the UK for five years.
I have been in the US for last five years.
Ram had been playing for the school for three years from 1999 to 2002.
Ankit will have been doing this job for two more years.
He had been waiting for me for the whole day yesterday.
The above given examples make clear the use of for in the Perfect and Perfect Continuous Tense. In the first example, the speaker informs the listener about the time period of five years denoted in form of the package. In the second sentence, the same speaker tells the listener about his stay in the USA given the time slot of ‘last five years’ in a bundle form. In the third sentence, the speaker speaks about Ankit suggesting his preoccupation with the job for a time period of two years to come. In the fifth sentence, the whole day is the suggested time period for the action which is expressed in Perfect Continuous Tense.
  2;1;35; Use of till/ until;  All these references to time are used when we have to show the end point of the action; the point where the action comes to an end.
We use till to denote the end point of the action where the action comes to a dead halt. Generally we use a direct reference to time for suggesting the end point of the action.
He had been playing with his friends till 7; 30 in the evening. Then he went back.
I had been waiting for his call until midnight, and then I went to sleep.
I have been very busy till the last weekend. Now I can spare sometime for him.
In all the three sentences till is used to denote the end point of the action. In case of the Perfect Tense (generally Past Perfect and Future Perfect) till denotes the point suggesting the completeness of the action. In the case of the Perfect Continuous Tense (generally Past Perfect and Future Perfect) till denotes the point of time where the process of the action comes to an end; the point where the action in form of the process ended or where it will end.