Embedded Files
An Inspector Calls
Inspector Goole
Inspector Goole
The Inspector arrives whilst the Birling family are celebrating the engagement of Sheila and Gerald. The stage directions state that he 'need not be a big man' but that he must create an 'impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness'. The Inspector investigates each family member one at a time and in doing so, reveals the consequences of their behaviour.
He drives forward the drama, with his questions creating shocking moments and gripping cliff-hangers for the audience. By the end of the play it is revealed that he isn’t actually an Inspector. It is not entirely clear who he is, Priestley leaves it up to the audience to decide. His name 'Goole' suggests a supernatural or ghost like element, and he seems to know what the characters will say before they do - is he the conscience of the audience? Is he the voice of Priestley? Either way he delivers a frightening message when he leaves, that if people do not take responsibility for each other, the world is doomed.
Mr. Arthur Birling
Mr. Arthur Birling
Mr Birling is the head of the Birling household. He has made himself very wealthy by being a 'hard-headed' business man. He is an active member of the community in Brumley and thinks that he might be in the running for a Knighthood. At the start of the play he comes across as being arrogant, making long speeches about his predictions for the future. He also makes assertions about how a man should look out for number one and not waste time helping others. It is at this exact moment that the Inspector arrives. Sybil, his wife, is his 'social superior' and it is hinted that he is self-conscious about being from a more working-class background. He is materialistic and possessive and also has old fashioned views about women.
Mr Birling is shaken by the investigation and is shocked by the behaviour of his son Eric. However, he doesn’t learn any lessons during the course of the play. When it seems that the Inspector might have been an imposter he is overjoyed and mocks the others for having been 'tricked' by the investigation.
Mrs. Sybil Birling
Mrs. Sybil Birling
Mrs Sybil Birling is Arthur Birling's wife and right from the opening of the play she is cold-hearted and snobbish despite being a prominent member of local women's charity. Throughout dinner she tells Sheila and Eric off for things that she considers impolite whilst ignorantly turning a blind eye to her son drinking too much. It is clear that despite Eric being old enough to drink and Sheila getting married, she sees them both as children, not as a young man and woman.
Her cold, uncaring nature leads to her downfall as the Inspector forces her to unknowingly condemn her own son.
Eric Birling
Eric Birling
Eric is the Birlings' son and is in his early twenties, he is described as being 'not quite at ease, half shy, half assertive'. In other words, he lacks confidence. At points he tries to stand up to his father but is talked down. It becomes clear that he is drunk at the dinner table and later it is revealed that he has been drinking too much for quite some time.
It turns out that Eric had an affair with Eva Smith and that she was pregnant with Eric's baby when she committed suicide. Eric stole money from his father's business to help Eva. In the final act Eric makes an emotional attack on his parents and their values and shows that he can be assertive.
Model Answer: How and why does Eric change in ‘An Inspector Calls’?
Model Answer: How and why does Eric change in ‘An Inspector Calls’?
In Edwardian England, sons of wealthy, upwardly mobile middle-class families would be expected to be spoiled and entitled. Subsequently, Priestley challenges the consequences of this through the character of Eric who, in the first set of stage directions, is presented as not quite at ease, ‘half-shy and half-assertive’ as he is caught between behaving like his father and Gerald and understanding the consequences of this behaviour.
Eric’s story and his relationship with Eva is developed in the background of Act 1 with tantalising details given to the audience, who become aware as Sheila does of Eric’s contribution to Eva/Daisy’s suicide. We may say the Priestley constructs Eric, and his sister, as a parallel for the audience (an audience with no prior knowledge of the play and who broadly would have been a similar age to Sheila and Eric in 1912) who gain a new understanding of the privilege of class and the supposed comfort of money.
Priestley uses the three act structure to show Eric’s changing character, one who must learn the consequences of his actions, his social responsibility and his role within the Edwardian social hierarchy, which Priestley places in the spotlight. In Act 1 Sheila comments negatively on her brother. We aren’t told who is older, they are both in their early twenties which Priestley tells us in those crucially detailed opening stage directions. Sheila alerts the audience to Eric’s drinking, ‘squiffy’ a delightful Edwardian slang term for being slightly drunk. She retorts that he is an ‘ass’ to counter his sniping comment to her accusation. Priestly presents a convincing picture of the petty squabbles between siblings which may seem an aside at this point in the play. On our further readings of the play, we understand that this naïve squabbling of the comfortable middle class Birling children turns and is projected out to the Birling parents and Gerald who stand on the other side of the emerging chasm between their different understandings of the impact of their actions on a vulnerable member of social hierarchy.
Priestley deliberately places Eric as a quiet background voice in Act 1 which is contrast to his assertive outspokenness in Act 3. In Act 1 Eric asks some provocative questions, like the war, which are immediately quashed by the pompous proleptic irony of the patriarchal Arthur Birling. The 1946 audience, fresh from the horrors of World War II (fire and blood and anguish) and also from World War I, know that Eric’s comment is perceptive. Re-reading the play shows us that Eric undergoes a significant transition from his childish ways in Act 1 to the more mature Eric at the end of Act 3 who sides with Sheila against his parents and Gerald, the ‘famous younger generation who know it all.’
However, Priestley’s interrogations reveal Eric’s weakness of character and while we appreciate how he recognises his selfishness and the casual cruelty of his actions, we may question how far he changes and whether this change is one which he can sustain. It may be Priestley’s intention to leave the audience with these questions as they leave the theatre.
Priestley’s main device is dialogue and interactions with other characters, therefore we see how Eric interactions with his parents, his sister and Gerald change over the few hours of the play. It is interesting that Eric’s dialogue is at the beginning and the end. Eric is referred to occasionally, mainly regarding his drinking, which is a subtle but significant detail. The play leads to the revelation of Eric as the father of Daisy Renton’s child. Priestley places this revelation at the end of Act 2, using Mrs Birling ignorance of the situation, and dramatic irony. Sheila’s character interrupts to show the continuing realisation of realisation of the harm caused by the Birling family’s actions, and to draw the audience’s attention to the final participation in the crime: Eric. Priestley shows Eric to have been a thoughtless and cruel individual in the antecedent action - when a chap turns nasty – who steals money which Daisy refuses to use. Eric is shown to be weak, potentially emasculated by his capitalist father who seems to see Gerald as a more worthy ‘son’. Eric is forced to mature, to cast off his shyness and realise he can be assertive. Priestley carefully contrasts Eric immaturity with Daisy’s maturity and independence, as Eric recalls and takes his turn in the narrative of the past. He refers to the women as ‘fat old tarts’ aligning him with irresponsible Gerald who disliked the ‘hard-eyed, dough faced’ women. Both privileged young men exploiting women who have been forced to turn to some form of prostitution.
Eric is presented to us as the outcome of his narrow-minded middle-class upbringing. Even though he changes as a result of the Inspector’s interrogation, which confronts him with his misdeeds, we may still see him a unlikeable, weak young man who could not admit his relationship with Daisy and his responsibilities as a father. He says that his parents do not understand anything but it is only the confrontation with his role in the suicide/murder of Daisy which forces him to begin to mature. Priestley leaves with us with the ‘younger generation’ of Sheila and Eric; yet it is Sheila who seems to have a greater understanding of what needs to change and how they need to change. Eric is in her shadow, despite his admission of ‘we did her in all right’ a strangely informal and colloquial phrase at this point of reducing tension; his anger at Birling and Gerald’s dismissal of the Inspector’s case. However, it is Sheila who stands to exit and Eric who follows her lead.
Subsequently, Priestley shows us a privileged young man who is confronted with his actions and their consequences. We see Eric find his voice at the end and perhaps we find hope in the younger generation – a man and a woman who may go to on to make changes and realised that they can make some changes for the millions and millions of Eva Smiths.
Sheila Birling
Sheila Birling
Sheila Birling is Arthur and Sybil's daughter and is in her early twenties. At the start of the play she is celebrating her engagement to Gerald Croft and she is a giddy, naïve and childish young lady. The Inspector arrives and she is very shocked by the news of Eva Smith's death, she is also very regretful of her own involvement in the suicide.
As the play continues, she matures, admiring Gerald's honesty, even though he cheated on her. She shows an assertive side by standing up to her mother and father and she also shows that she is insightful and intelligent - she can see where the Inspector's investigation is going and tries to warn the others.
By the end of the play she has grown up and has realised that her actions can have grave consequences.
Gerald Croft
Gerald Croft
Gerald is described as 'an attractive chap about thirty, rather too manly to be a dandy but very much the easy well-bred young man-about-town'. Mr Birling is very pleased that Gerald is getting engaged to Sheila because his family are upper-class business owners, Mr Birling hopes they can join forces in business.
At the beginning of the play, Gerald comes across as being confident and charming. This changes after his affair with Eva Smith is revealed. Gerald gives himself away when he hears that Eva changed her name to Daisy Renton. He initially is evasive and tries not to talk too much about it but redeems himself in the eyes of the audience by being more open and honest about it as he talks to Sheila. He lets himself down in the final act by trying to get the family out of trouble, he doesn't seem to have learned from his mistakes.
The writer P.G. Wodehouse explained that in this era, the “man about town”: was never an angry young man. He would get a little cross, perhaps, if his man Meadowes sent him out some morning with odd spats on, but his normal outlook on life was sunny. He was humble, kindly soul, who knew he was a silly ass but hoped you wouldn’t mind. He liked everybody, and most people like him. Portrayed on the stage by George Grossmith and G. P. Huntley, he was a lovable figure, warming the hearts of all. You might disapprove of him not being a world’s worker, but you could not help being fond of him…Most knuts were younger sons, and in the reign of good King Edward the position of the younger son in aristocratic families was . . . what’s the word, Jeeves?, anomalous?
Eva Smith (Daisy Renton)
Eva Smith (Daisy Renton)
We never meet Eva Smith during the course of the play, but she is a very important character. It is her death that is the cause of the Inspector’s investigation which in turn drives the drama.
The audience learns about Eva through the Inspector, who has read a letter and a diary she kept. They also learn about her through the characters she came into contact with. A lot of the information about her is inferred - from the incident at Mr Birling’s factory we can infer that she was strong willed. From her interaction with Sheila the audience can see that Eva had a sense of humour. Her relationship with Gerald, when she changed her name to Daisy Renton, reveals her sensitivity. By the time she reaches Eric and Sybil, Eva is desperate and resourceful in trying to get herself help.
Eva is always referred to in a positive light by the characters that met her but the Inspector never lets the audience or the Birlings and Gerald forget her gruesome death. The Inspector's final speech reveals Priestley's lesson that there are millions of Eva Smiths being exploited and this must not continue.
Eva represents the working class through the insecurity of her jobs, her inability to defend herself, her dependency on the charity of others and her extremely common name which makes her seem functional and ubiquitous.
Eva is helpless and forgotten; indeed, the people who have had dealings with her are only stirred into recalling her when shown her photograph.
By remaining hidden from the audience, Eva (the victim) is mute and invisible meaning each member of the audience can imagine what she looks like, thus making the sense of loss more acute and personal.
The increasing anger demonstrated by the Inspector (through the mouthpiece of Priestley) regarding the horrific conditions of Eva’s life force the audience to recognise the key concepts of Priestley’s socialist views, most notably social responsibility.
Considering we never meet or even see Eva Smith as an audience we are still able to form a vivid impression of her and her life from the details we are given through the play. Another way Priestley adds meaning and symbolism is through the names she uses:
Eva Smith
Interestingly, ‘Smith’, the most common name in Great Britain, comes from the Middle English period (1150-1470) and derives from someone who works with metal, such as a blacksmith so Priestley has chosen a name synonymous with a working class occupation.
Along with ‘Daisy’, ‘Eva’ was one of the most popular names in the early 20th century which again reveals that as well as being defined as an individual with unique and personal experiences throughout the play, Eva comes to represent the working class as ‘one body’.
We can also associate the name ‘Eva’ with Eve from the story of creation – she is the first woman on earth and therefore represents all womankind. We know that Eve is blamed for both her and Adam eating the forbidden fruit. Perhaps Eva’s assertive nature and protests against the capitalism that Birling so defiantly promotes could represent her taking a bite from the forbidden fruit (committing the ‘Original Sin’causing ‘The Fall’) for which she is then punished. Society accepts Eva so long as she plays by the patriarchal rules; if she does not, she is banished (fallen), as Eve was from the Garden of Eden.
Daisy Renton
We associate the flower with spring, fertility and therefore rebirth. However, a daisy is also trodden underfoot and squashed and most poignantly, the phrase ‘pushing up the daisies’, or as George Macdonald in 1866 wrote about his name, ‘I shall very soon hide it under some daisies’, makes reference to death and decay. An apparently optimistic and renewed image that holds a sinister and dark foreshadowing beneath.
The name ‘Renton’ is assertive in its direction of the audience towards ‘rent’. The audience hears, at times vividly, how Daisy was treated by both Eric and Gerald. Both men exchange money or materials for Daisy’s body and ‘rent’ her for their own selfish desires.
The issue of consent
The threat of assault heavily implies that Eric did not gain consent to have sex with Eva.
“I was in one of those moods when a chap threatens to turn nasty”
The class system is what ultimately causes Eva to ‘consent’ – Eric “threatened to make a row” and if this caused Eva’s landlady to hear, it would be Eva who ended up evicted, rather than Eric who was in trouble for assault.
The characters assume consent from Eva before she gives it, if she does.
Edna
Edna
Edna never questions the actions of her employers, nor does she display any behaviour that shows she disagrees with their attitude. Her role is purely functionary. Through her presence, and notable lack of presence at key moments of the play, she remains a dependable piece of the household furniture at the beck and call of her employer.
Her silence does not imply that she is complicit with the actions of the family, but more that as a member of the working class, she is bound by the same restrictions that killed Eva Smith.
Her duties as a maid not only include clearing the dinner table and answering the front door, but also turning a blind eye to greed, excess, infidelity, ignorance and the presence of a police inspector in the family home.
Other Revision Resources
Other Revision Resources
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse