How does Priestley present the character of Gerald?
5+
Before Gerald is questioned by the inspector, Priestley presents him as a character who lies. Just before Gerald is questioned, Priestley makes clear Gerald wishes to lie to the inspector by having him say ‘We can keep it from him’. In other words, Gerald is stating to Sheila that he thinks he can lie about the affair with Eva Smith. Priestley contrasts Gerald with Sheila, who didn’t try to lie to the inspector. Sheila was happy to admit that she had Eva Smith fired from Milwards. By contrasting these characters, Priestley emphasises Gerald’s selfishness. Unlike Sheila, he wishes to protect his reputation and sees this as more important than admitting his mistakes. Priestley could be presenting Gerald in this way to suggest that many middle and upper class men like Gerald had affairs and were happy to lie about it in order to protect their reputations.
During the inspector’s questioning, Priestley makes clear Gerald took advantage of Eva Smith. When Gerald explains how he met Eva Smith, Priestley indicates that Gerald had sympathy for her by writing ‘I felt sorry for her’. These words imply that, when he first met her, Gerald wanted to use his wealth and power to try to help her, by giving her money and a place to live. However, it is clear that Gerald took advantage of this power because he allowed an affair to develop between him and Eva Smith. Although he had an affair, Gerald never had any intention of marrying Eva Smith because she was from a lower class. Priestley uses Gerald’s actions to criticise the actions of many middle and upper class men in 1912, who used working class women in this way.
After the inspector leaves, Priestley demonstrates that Gerald has not learned anything. At the end of the play, Priestley has Gerald say to Sheila ‘Everything’s alright now Sheila. What about this ring?’. The words ‘everything’s alright now’ suggest that Gerald thinks everything can go back to normal because they’ve realised the inspector wasn’t real. This demonstrates that he doesn’t feel very guilty about the way he behaved and only really cared when he thought the news might come out in public and cause a scandal. The words’ what about this ring?’ suggest that Gerald thinks he and Sheila can go back to being engaged, even though he had an affair. If he had learned from his mistakes, Gerald would not have re-proposed to Sheila, expecting her to forget the affair. Priestley uses Gerald’s actions to criticise the rich for not learning from their mistakes and not learning to take responsibility for the working classes.
7+
How does Priestley present the character of Gerald Croft in An Inspector Calls?
An Inspector Calls is about how people should be more responsible. Through Gerald’s character, Priestley exposes the irresponsible behaviour of many upper class men in 1912. Priestley uses the character of Gerald Croft to highlight the ways in which issues of class divide and gender inequality were deeply ingrained in every aspect of Britain's social hierarchies during the Edwardian era.
Priestley uses the character of Gerald Croft to represent the upper class (aristocracy) in An Inspector Calls. Priestley makes it clear that Gerald Croft is of a higher class than the Birlings when Mr Birling enquires about Gerald’s parents, Lord and Lady Croft. Mr Birling is very excited about his daughter’s engagement to Gerald Croft because it represents an opportunity to merge with Croft Ltd. and climb up the social ladder. However, the audience is more likely to infer that Lord and Lady Croft’s absence from Gerald and Sheila’s engagement party reveals their upper class disapproval of their son’s union with the middle class Birlings. People in Britain had strict social hierarchies in 1912; Priestley reveals how the upper class looked down on the middle class, just like the middle class Birlings looked down on working class people like Eva Smith.
Gerald’s character represents the stereotypical upper class male who assumes superiority and privilege, particularly over the lower classes and women. Priestley uses Gerald’s relationship with Eva Smith, who he knew as Daisy Renton, to reveal the unfair class and gender privilege of upper class males. Gerald’s relationship with Eva Smith is unequally balanced from the beginning; he describes how he ‘felt sorry for her’ due to her desperate situation. Although Gerald has kind intentions initially, Eva’s hardship is a situation that he is able to take advantage of, beginning a relationship that he has no intention of continuing long term. Gerald met Eva Smith at The Palace Bar, which is referred to as somewhere that ‘women of the town’ frequent, so Priestley seems to be suggesting that many women were forced into prostitution or taken advantage of (like Eva) because of poverty. Wages were low and there were no benefits prior to the Welfare state that was set up by the Labour party in 1946, which meant women like Eva Smith often had no choice. As a socialist, Priestley wanted to highlight the inequality and challenge the upper classes to take social responsibility, instead of just taking advantage.
Priestley also uses Gerald’s character to highlight how sexism was deeply ingrained in the upper classes. Like Mr and Mrs Birling, Gerald treats Sheila like a child at the beginning of the play which reveals how middle/upper class females were also treated as inferiors within the patriarchal society of 1912. After the engagement meal, Sheila and her mother retire to the drawing room while the men discuss business. The absence of the females implies that they were considered intellectually inferior to the males. Moreover, when Sheila questions whether Gerald was really busy at work during the previous summer, her parents make excuses for him, almost as if it was acceptable for men to have affairs although higher class women were expected to stay pure for their husbands. Mr and Mrs Birling encourage Sheila to marry Gerald Croft even after he has admitted to the affair with Eva Smith, which suggests that his higher class and status excuse his immoral behaviour. Through the presentation of Gerald’s relationships with women, Priestley therefore explores both gender inequality in both the higher and lower classes.
Whilst Gerald’s character never admits full responsibility for his wrongs like Sheila and Eric, who represent the younger generation, he is not as hard hearted and selfish as Mr and Mrs Birling. Ultimately, Priestley’s socialist message was that ‘We don't live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other.’ By the end of the play, the younger generation accept full responsibility and represent the potential for social change. Sadly though, Gerald’s character sides with the older generation and avoids taking responsibility for Eva Smith ‘s death. After realising the inspector’s visit was a ‘hoax’, Gerald tries to re-initiate his engagement with Sheila, stating ‘Everything’s alright now, Sheila. What about this ring?’. It seems Gerald, like Birling, was most concerned about the risk of a public scandal and potential damage to his reputation. Feeling reassured that ‘everything’s alright’ after the revelation that the inspector isn’t ‘real’, Gerald seems hopeful that he and Sheila can forget the affair and resume the engagement celebrations as if nothing happened. In this way, Priestley seems to be suggesting that it may take longer for the upper classes to change, but Gerald’s tokens of kindness to Eva Smith imply that it is possible.