inspector calls eva smith essay

An Inspector Calls Essays

One of the best things you can do to revise for any english exam is to read examples of essays. below you'll find a range of essays which you can read at your leisure., though there are always benefits in reading essays, becoming use to "active reading" is also important. to do this, use one of these strategies to help:, print the essay off and highlight key phrases or pieces of analysis that you like, keep some notes on the ways the essays use key vocabulary, cherry-picking the best phrases for use yourself, note down the structures of the essays but making a note of the focus of each paragraph, remember that there are hundreds of ways to write a successful essay, as the examples below will highlight. but they all manage to link the big ideas of the play with the language and structure; they all write about priestley's intentions and the audience's responses; they all recognise that this play is written to make a political point, not just to entertain the audience., a) how does priestley explore responsibility in an inspector calls , in the play, priestly wanted the audience to take responsibility for each other, to see that society was "one body." he wanted the audience in 1945 to recognise that although there had been positive changes since 1912, he didn't want them to regress and, in fact, wanted them to demand even more social reform., firstly , priestley uses the inspector to demonstrate to his audience that morality is a much more admirable quality in a person than mr birling's selfish manner. in act 3 mr birling offers "thousands" to help eva, though the inspector tells him that he is “offering money at the wrong time.” this shows that the inspector has the moral high ground and, although from a lower class, is holding all the power over the birling's treasured reputation. to the audience it would be obvious that birling should have given the money earlier, that it was inevitable that eva would end up costing him. it is also revealing that birling wouldn't give eva smith a small pay rise as it would have meant he couldn't "lower prices" but when it came to saving his status he was prepared to “give thousands.” by this stage, mr birling seems quite flustered and somewhat embarrassed as although in the outside world his authority is growing in his own home he can't control a man of “that class.” from a psychoanalytic perspective you could argue that this reflects birlings upbringing and the values that he was taught to respect as a younger man when he worked had and was kept poor in a way that taught him the value of hard work. in this way, mr birling feels that all the people who have money deserve it while the people who don't have money clearly don't deserve it. also, it is from his background that birling being taught to prioritise materialistic things could be the root of his difficult relationship with eric; he comes across as very cold and unforgiving which possibly reflected onto his son. this could easily be a subconscious cause of eric's addiction (looking for escape and comfort in the absence of his father's approval) and be linked to why eva viewed him to be more juvenile than gerald. the need for superficial things in his life like power and wealth is portrayed in the play as quite harmful and only something which will hold a person back, the inspector seems to be free from all these hindering social constructs and is definitely a much more favourable character because of this., in spite of their strong differences in beliefs, both mr birling and the inspector are very self-assured characters who are equally set in their ways . this is not mirrored in the younger characters like eric or sheila. priestly emphasizes a message directed towards the younger generations that they are the hope for change. throughout the play birling refuses to accept the need for reform or responsibility , he represents the stereotypical man of his age and class that priestley uses to contradict sheila's growing outward-looking empathy. when she promises the inspector that she will “never never do it again to anybody” she is acknowledging her privileges and shows that she understands how people must take responsibility for each other. i would say that her materialistic upbringing and the damage that has done makes her incredibly naive and impacts hugely on her opinion of others' worth. when talking about eva smith in act 1 one of the first things she asked was “is she pretty” from this line alone it is clear to the audience where her priorities lie and what kinds of values were instilled in her from a young age probably by her shallow mother. priestly highlights that it's the duty of the young to bring about reform and for this to happen they firstly need to realise the older generations won't do it for them. he also stresses that it's not ok for people like the birlings to take credit for their achievements but never accept responsibility for the consequences of their profit., priestley uses the contrast between age groups and class to explore universal divides caused by pride, reputation and lack of accountability, things that mr and mrs birling value highly but sheila is willing to let go of by accepting her mistakes and returning gerald's engagement ring (also rejecting her father's business interest in gerald.).

Examiners commentary:

The simple, clear first paragraph is fine.

The second paragraph, however, contains some interesting points that could be related to the question but which aren't. As a result, a lot of what's good in this paragraph is lost. This could have been easily fixed if the student had remembered to continually link their points back to the question.

The third paragraph is an improvement in that it does mention responsibility more often and has some interesting observations about the generation gap.

The third paragraph feels unfinished and unclear - it sounds like it's saying that Mr and Mrs Birling value accountability highly, or that the view a "lack of accountability" highly, neither of which are true.

AO1: Lots of AO1, though it isn't connected to the question often enough

AO2: Not enough AO2 at all - hardly any specific language analysis

AO3: Nothing of note outside of the first paragraph

Grade: This is a difficult essay to grade. There are lots of interesting points, especially about how our upbringings affect our outlook, but they're not always linked to the question which means they won't score as well as they should. Also, a complete lack of AO2 causes real problems. This is probably a G5 though with a few minor changes it could easily be pushed up two grades.

B) How does Priestley explore responsibility in An Inspector Calls ?

Priestley presents a strong message about responsibility throughout the play. he wants us all to take more responsibility for each other., firstly, he uses the character of mr birling to convey the ignorance of those who refuse to take responsibility. we can see this when mr birling says, “community and all that nonsense”. the use of the noun “nonsense” shows the audience that mr birling is mocking socialists and those who believe society should be a community. you can almost hear his sarcastic tone as if ‘community’ is an absurd idea. the word “all” also highlights his belief that anything to do with community, such as helping others and being responsible for one another, is ridiculous. this links to when he says, “a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own.” the repetition of the pronoun “his” emphasises that he only takes care of his possessions and doesn’t think twice about others. also, it exposes to the audience his sense of higher class entitlement linked to his lack of responsibility for things that are not directly his fault. the audience of 1945 would have been shocked because by this time, after the labour movement and war, people were becoming more open-minded about mixing social classes and community responsibility. this links to priestley’s message because he was a socialist and believed people should have equal rights., in contrast to mr birling, priestley uses the character of sheila to present those who are willing to take responsibility. we see this in the line, “i’ll never, never do it again to anyone”. the repetition of “never, never” reveals that sheila feels guilty and deeply regrets her actions. it also tells the audience that she is open-minded about changing how she behaves, regardless of her social class. the use of the noun “anyone” reveals that she doesn’t care if the person is upper class or lower class. she doesn’t want to put anyone in that position again and has taken full responsibility. if this play had been shown in 1912, the audience may have been more likely to agree with the birling’s ideas and would have thought sheila may be acting foolishly. however, the audience of 1945 would have been more sympathetic towards sheila because at this time, society was shifting towards the creation of the nhs, the introduction of education for all and the building of social housing. this reflected how society was coming together more and caring more for the poor instead of brushing them aside., similarly, the character of inspector goole is the main voice of responsibility in the play and is the voice of priestley himself as he is trying to show the birling family that being upper class doesn’t make them any less responsible for the community than the next person. this sense of responsibility is also reflected in the stage directions when the light goes from “pink and intimate” and “brighter and harder”, when the inspector enters. immediately, this tells us that the i nspector has a presence on the stage and that he has come to say something important. perhaps it is about bri nging light to the things that the upper classes like to hide in the shadows, or the harsh lighting works almost like he is interrogating the family. the spotlight is now on them and what they have done., additionally, priestley conveys a message of responsibility through the inspector when he says, “we are members of one body.” the noun “members” highlights that we are all joined together and if one member falls, then it brings everything down. furthermore, it links to the idea that community is like a family who should take care of each other no matter what. it could also have religious connotations because in the last supper jesus said, “this is my body that will be given up for you, take this in memory of me.” here, jesus said that people should eat the bread because it would bring everyone together and he always believed that people should be equal. in 1912, people were very divided and the poor would rarely move up to the higher classes. priestley was aiming to ensure that the shifts in society happening in 1945 were strengthened and that everyone felt that responsibility for others was important..

Really clear structure, with a clear target for each paragraph

Doesn't make a wide range of points but has a quote to backup each point and explores the quote in depth

Each section ends with something about the context

Though each point is presented with a quote attached, this could have been improved with some other references from the play even if those quotes or references weren't analysed in depth

AO1: Not much AO1 really, no real refernces to key moments of plot

AO2: Lots of great AO2 - quotes analysed in depth

AO3: Good AO3, all key points linked to context

Grade: A really neat, clear and well organised essay. A lack of AO1 is a problem, as is the fact that although each paragraph was linked to an idea connected to responsibility the link isn't always made clear. However, there's loads of AO2 and AO3 so it would be a comfortable G7. With a couple of sentences added to each paragraph which referenced a few key moments of plot it would go up to a G8.

C) How does Priestley explore responsibility in An Inspector Calls ?

Priestley explores ideas about responsibility through the way the birlings behave towards eva smith. arthur birling explains the family’s capitalist philosophy when he says ‘a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own’ which suggests that he feels that he only has responsibility for his own family and himself . this is reinforced by the way the birlings treat eva smith. first of all, arthur fires her from his factory to make an example of her because she asks for higher wages and dares to take responsibility for others by speaking up on their behalf. it is revealed that arthur’s prime motive is to keep wages down so that he could make more profits. priestley reinforces this through arthur’s constant repetition of ‘hard headed man of business’, to remind the audience that he is representative of capitalism and the damage it causes. the word ‘business’ is later used by birling to refer to the death of eva smith as he states how her death is ‘horrid business’ which emphasises the message that birling only sees people’s lives in terms of profit. priestley is showing the audience that a blind belief that generating profits and prosperity for the good of everyone is fundamentally wrong as it causes innocent people to suffer tragic consequences., although all the birlings are responsible for eva’s mistreatment and death in some way, they react differently when they find this out from the inspector. mr and mrs birling do not change and are only concerned about their reputation - the possible ‘scandal’ or arthur’s ‘knighthood’. however, priestley’s intention is give the audience a message of hope as sheila and eric do recognise that they have behaved badly by the end of the play and therefore he is suggesting that it is the younger generation that have the responsibility for adopting more socialist principles. through the younger birlings’ attitudes, priestley suggests that socialism is the modern way and that it is young people who will change society for the better., this change of views in the younger generation is also shown through the play’s structure as eric dramatically exits the stage at a crucial point suggesting he is struggling to contain his guilt over his mistreatment of eva smith. likewise, sheila is struggling with her guilt and tries to show that she has changed by directing others to realise their own responsibility in eva smith’s suicide. for example, sheila warns her mother not to ‘build up a wall’ this metaphor describes the separation of the social classes as mrs birling believes she is superior to the lower classes. the irony is that the opposite is true as priestley reveals how mrs birling’s behaviour is morally wrong – she punished a pregnant girl by refusing her charity when she needed it the most just because the girl used her name and in doing so angered mrs birling., through using the form of a morality play, priestley is able to identify what each family member’s sins and how it was these sins that they demonstrated and caused their mistreatment of eva smith. for instance, eric’s lust for eva smith meant that he forced himself upon eva and then his sloth – his inability to earn his own money meant he stole money from his father instead of facing up to his responsibility and earning money himself. by the end of the play, priestley shows that eric fully accepts his responsibility and describes how he cannot even remember his assault of eva as being a ‘hellish thing’. the use of this metaphor implies he is being tortured by his own guilt and knows he has been committed to hell due to his sins., priestley constructs the inspector’s role as that of a priest as he extracts all the confessions from the birlings and attempts to force them to accept their responsibilities through asking questions which challenge their capitalist way of life and challenges their edwardian values of social class and hierarchy. in addition, the inspector’s language has religious tones to it as he warns the birlings and gerald croft that if they do not stop exploiting the poor, they will learn their lesson with ‘fire, blood and anguish’. there is an inference that they will be punished in hell for not caring about the way those less fortunate are treated. through the inspector’s voice, the audience hear the socialist message that the birlings are being taught and we left knowing that this is a warning to us all – we need to accept responsibility and take better care of others around us., how does sheila change during an inspector calls, - summary paragraph, - stage directions, - confrontation with the inspector – she takes responsibility, - standing up to her parents, - the young are more impressionable, - ending – grown up, throughout inspector calls, sheila is the character who changes the most. at the beginning of the play she is a young, naïve girl who is happy to be told what to think and do; by the end she is the only character who really takes responsibility for the death of eva and is happy to tell her parents that she thinks they are wrong., the stage directions describe her as being “very pleased with life” a phrase which reflects her luxurious upbringing. she’s also described as being “excited” an adjective that suggests she is looking forward to her life. in both these respects she could be viewed as being ignorant to the reality of what her luxury costs others, or how difficult the times ahead will be., sheila refers to her parents as “mummy” and “daddy,” nouns that are associated with young children and not young adults; she is also told off by her mother for squabbling with her brother, a fact that reinforces our vision of her as being infantilised by her parents. sheila is then given a ring by her fiancé gerald. “is it the one you wanted me to have” she asks him, a phrase that suggests she wasn’t really interested in what she wanted but only what gerald wanted her to have. throughout the opening she is presented as a child, with no real desires or wishes of her own. in many respects, she is the traditional rich young woman – without a real mind of her own by virtue of her gender., when the inspector arrives, he explains how her spoilt behaviour in a shop led to eva being sacked. “then i’m really responsible,” she accepts, quickly recognising her role in the girl’s downfall. also, she observes that the inspector is getting ready to speak to gerald next and pushes this through, asking direct questions to gerald and working out the reasons why he wasn’t where he said he was the summer before. in both these cases, she is showing independent thought – by accepting responsibility even when others don’t and by pushing gerald against his wishes., during their time with the inspector, her parents and gerald repeatedly try to send sheila out of the room to protect her from his news – her mother argues that she is “looking tired,” something that we would only really say to a very small child. sheila repeatedly refuses, arguing that she will stay until “i know why that girl killed herself.” here, she clearly shows herself standing up to her parents, sticking to her desire to discover the truth of the situation., at one point arthur argues that the inspector is making “quite an impression” on sheila, suggesting that she’s coming around to the inspector’s way of thinking. “we often do on the young ones,” the inspector replies, suggesting that his socialist values are more affective on younger people. this reflects a view of priestley’s which was that socialism and left wing values are more impactful on younger people, a fact that’s often reflected in even modern opinion polls where right wing conservatives tend to be older. this is also shown in how, by the end of the play, mr and mrs birling remain unchanged by the arrival of the inspector, while their children change – even gerald admits that the events “affected him,” before he reverts back to his old ways., even after the inspector leaves, sheila continues to push his ideas trying to make sure that her family don’t forget him. she claims they are beginning to “pretend” that nothing has happened, clearly accepting that things won’t be the same again. her use of the verb is interesting as well, as games of “pretend” are really childish things. it seems that the girl who was once infantilised is now accusing her parents of playing make-believe. she also argues that her parents “don’t seem to have learnt anything,” behaving almost like a school mistress arguing that a lesson has been missed. she also says, in response to a speech from eric in which he accepts responsibility, that he makes her feel a little less “ashamed” of them, a word which really shows just how powerfully sheila sees her parents’ remorseless behaviour., her frustration is clear throughout the ending, where she says her parents’ behaviour “scares” her. this clearly references the inspectors closing words about “fire and blood and anguish” which referenced the years of war that would follow the period between the play being written and being performed. the audience at this point would doubtless be agreeing with sheila regarding her fear. her parents continue to ignore her desire to grow up, infantilising her again by suggesting that she’s just “tired” and “hysterical,” though they can’t ignore her final words when she refuses gerald’s ring again which clearly shows that she has grown up enough to express herself completely, how does priestley present mrs birling as an unlikeable character (high level response), priestley presents mrs birling as an unlikable character as she doesn’t change throughout the play. in acts 1 and 2 she doesn’t say much about the tragic death of eva at all, showing her lack of remorse., on the other hand, characters like sheila do realise the horror of the suicide. in act 2, gerald says “sorry, i’ve just realised a girl has died”. this is ironic [sic] as he had found out in act 1, but it had only sunken in in act 2. the word “sorry” shows he feels embarrassed about his emotional side, as many men of the time (1912) did., sheila also changes throughout, creating a stark contrast to her mother. in act 1 she refers to her mother as “mummy” like when she says “mummy, isn’t it a beauty” this shows she was dependant on her and worried about material things. she later says, “but these girls aren’t cheap labour, they’re people” to mr birling, showing his daughter isn’t afraid to voice her opinion but her mother is. in act 2, sheila says, “we really must stop these silly pretences”. the inclusive pronoun “we” not only presents sheila as the family member doing the right thing and trying to influence others, as her mother should, but also involves the audience, trying to give them a message. the noun “pretences” is significant as it was mrs birling who pretended not to remember eva smith., when she was shown the photo it was evident that mrs birling didn’t change throughout as at the end of the play in act 3 gerald suggests that “he’s been had”, and the birlings are keen to accept it, whilst sheila and gerald remain guilt-stricken. the audience of the time, in 1945, would have just experienced the war and realised everyone must start taking care of one another. they may have not been so quick to change, as, at the time, only rich, most-likely capitalist, people would have gone to the theatre to see the play, whereas a modern audience is more diverse and open., priestley also presents mrs birling as an unlikable character as she is dismissive towards many different groups. for example, she says “a girl of that class” when her part in the suicide is revealed. the noun “girls” shows mrs birling’s views that working class girls are undeserving of names. this derogatory comment would have infuriated an audience of 1945 as the working class were extremely beneficial during the war, though the class divide was massive in 1912. she is even misogynist, like mr birling, who says “clothes mean something different to women”. she says “sheila and i had better go to the drawing room”, which shows her views on women’s place in society, due to gender roles. she also says men have to spend a lot of time working away, but sheila challenges it and says she won’t get used to it. it is obvious priestley has used the younger generations as a symbol for more open-minded people as eric also challenges mr birling on war. mr birling says the titanic is “unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable”. the repetition and qualifiers enhance the dramatic irony as he was wrong about both of these things. it is almost as though priestley is mocking people like mr birling., mrs birling also has capitalist views which don’t change throughout the play. she believes in a social hierarchy as seen in the stage directions before the play begin, where the characters are placed around a rectangular table which gives power to those at the top and bottom, and when she says, “be quiet and let your father think of what we should do next”. the imperative verb “be” shows how she is even being rude towards her own children., this contrast with shelia’s feminism, which was popular due to the suffragette movement in 1912, significant after 1945 as many women helped the war effort and important to a modern audience who have achieved so much. mrs birling uses her powers for bad as she “influenced” the committee to refuse eva help., priestley uses the play as an allegory for his socialist views. by inducing a sense of hatred towards mrs birling he allows the audience to see the flaws in a capitalist mind-set. priestley, having served in the war himself, developed strong socialist views. this is reflected in the inspector, who is a mouthpiece for priestley as he uses the metaphor, “we are all part of one body” to imply everyone should look after one another. priestley had a popular radio programme which was cancelled for being too “left wing” by the bbc. as time progresses, the audience becomes more socialist and the play is more effective., priestley presents mrs birling as having double standard. this can be seen in the quotation, “i’m sorry eric… didn’t know”, after finding out it was her son she was talking about when she said he should take full responsibility for eva’s pregnancy., despite stage directions calling for pink, intimate lighting at the beginning, mrs birling never seems to be intimate with her children. when the inspector asks if eric drinks, she says “of course not, he’s only a boy”, which shows she is either lying or not close with her family. however, sheila says he’s been “steadily drinking for two years”, showing she is either trying to get him into trouble or is keen to get him help. either way, she is closer with him than his own mother. the siblings also exchange comments when she calls him “squiffy”. the colloquialism has mrs birling unaware of the changes and reluctant to change her mind-set. this also foreshadows the importance of alcohol in the play as it was the cause of eric’s behaviour., how does priestley present the views of the inspector in an inspector calls (high level response), inspector goole is presented as an omnipotent, powerful figure throughout the whole play; his presence immediately has the power to change the light and cheerful atmosphere of the birlings' dinner party. the lighting changes from "pink and intimate" to "brighter and harder" once the inspector arrives. here, priestley's use of the adjectives "pink and intimate" suggests a warm and happy atmosphere whereas the adjective "harder" opposes this. priestley uses the inspector as a dramatic device. not only could it be argued that the inspector is an immensely powerful figure but also that priestley uses the stage directions that inspector goole's arrival to act as a symbol for how he wants society to improve. the lighting before the inspector arrives suggests that the birling family – who are a stereotypical portrayal of a middle class family – were happy whilst they were ignorant to the working class. the lighting change tells us how priestley wants society to change; he wants society to stop being ignorant to the working class., furthermore, j. b. priestley uses the inspector to convey that he wants society to change and become more empathetic towards the working class instead of perceiving them as being disposable. when the inspector arrives, he tells the birling family about eva smith’s suicide in which she drank a lot of strong disinfectant that “burnt her inside out”. priestley’s language persuades the audience to feel immense sympathy not only for eva smith but also for all of the working class; it could be argued that eva smith’s suffering and suicide is used as a metaphor to highlight the continuous struggled faced by the working class, throwing into relief the issues within society and how these problems are ignored by the wealthier classes. priestley’s gory imagery alternately makes the audience feel guilty because they may realise how ignorant they have been to ignore the struggles of the working class and persuade them to change by being more empathetic., priestley suggests that a pressing issue with the twentieth century society is that people are reluctant to take responsibility for their actions. this view is encapsulated through the use of the elder members of the birling family, arthur birling and his wife mrs birling – who do not take responsibility for their actions towards eva smith. however, priestley uses the inspector to try to change this. the inspector states that if we share nothing else, “we have to share our guilt”. here priestley uses the personal pronoun “we” to give society a sense of unity, implying everyone must do the same and follow the inspector’s teachings. ‘an inspector calls’ was set in 1912, a time in which society was divided by not only gender but by social class. priestley wants the middle and upper classes to transform from abusing their power to dominate and exploit the working class to instead being more responsible for their actions and treating people more sympathetically ., priestley uses the inspector to convey the consequences of what will happen if members of society do not change. he states that we will be “taught” in “fire and blood and anguish”. priestley’s use of a triplet of nouns act as metaphors for the two world wars. the entire play is used as a motif for the wars; if society proceeds to not improve the way in which members of society treat each other, the world wars will repeat in an endless cycle until we learn. here, the inspector is presented as an omnipotent being. ‘an inspector calls’ was written and first performed at the end of the second world war therefore the contemporary audience will have experienced the perpetual suffering that comes with them. priestley uses the inspector to make the audience fearful as they are persuaded to think that the inspector is a god-like character imposing judgement on society. this will persuade all audiences to change their actions and embrace socialist ideologies of caring for other members of society which is what priestley intended them to do., priestley wants the middle and upper classes to stop being selfish and exploiting the poor for their own financial gain, but instead be more generous and empathetic towards other members of the working class. the inspector is almost an impartial figure in the play because he does not fit into the distinct levels of society. this gives the audience the impression that the inspector is an unbiased figure; they will be persuaded to listen to him and change their views., compare priestley’s presentation of eva smith and shelia birling., in the play ‘an inspector calls’ we see a family called the birlings that consist of many different characters, personalities and beliefs. we only begin to see these different aspects when the family begin to learn how each one of them was involved in causing the chain of events which led a girl, eva smith to commit suicide. there are two characters in particular who are very different in the way that they live their lives and their own outlook on life. these two characters are eva smith and shelia birling., shelia is the daughter of sybil and arthur birling. they are a well-known family in brumley and are in the public eye constantly because of the position her father holds within the town as he is on the bench and the owner of the big birling and company and is due to marry gerald croft whose parents are very well-known also., eva smith is almost the opposite of the social scale to shelia. she has no friends or family to rely on and is quite an independent woman. she struggles to get by and is unable to cope with the strains that she is forced to be under at her age., at the beginning of the play we see shelia at the table with her family and how she is influenced by her family’s thoughts. she was quite childish and used petty excuses for her actions ‘i told him that if they didn’t get rid of that girl, i’d never go near the place again’. this shows that shelia had the same approach about how to treat others of the lower class as her father, which is not a good quality that shelia and arthur birling share., when we first hear of eva smith in the play we learn about the time that she experienced while working at birling and company. she was outspoken, resilient and gutsy as she led a group of workers on strike in an attempt to get higher wages ‘she’d had a lot to say-far too much- so she had to go’., there we see the huge difference in the lives that each of them live, but it is the way that shelia changes as the play goes on and learns more about eva smith’s life., once shelia knows more about the family’s effect on eva’s life she becomes more defiant, and mature. she begins to stand up to her parents who still look down on eva. she realises that there is no need to treat a person the way that the birling family did, no matter whether it was the same girl or not ‘everything we said had happened really hadn’t happened. if it didn’t end tragically, then that’s lucky for us. but it might have done.’ she has a more compassionate approach to eva and her life as she learns about the suffering that this girl the same age as herself had to go through., priestly shows the importance of caring for others within your community by showing that if the birling’s had looked after eva smith and treated her with any respect then maybe it would have prevented her suicide, because she would have been in a lot happier state of mind. this also takes place near to every one of us. if you treat one person unacceptably then you never know what effect that may have on them and others around them, if you do your bit to treat every person with decency that you meet then you will have no regrets with what you have done., priestly also shows through shelia that she was the next generation, with the new ideas of how people of another class should be treated and how the other birling’s are still living in the old, traditional frame of mind, which is harsh and uncaring to others. whereas shelia would be a middle aged woman when priestly wrote the book, he wanted to show the difference of views between the younger and older generations of 1912., shelia birling and eva smith are very different characters, but it is the effect that they can have on each other’s lives which highlights priestley’s views about community., to what extent could you argue that mr birling is the most important character in an inspector calls , as the ‘head of the household’ mr birling is, arguably, the central character to an inspector calls. throughout the beginning of the play he displays the kind of arrogance that priestley expected to see from a selfish capitalist; throughout the exchange, he is completely unapologetic about the death of eva; and after the inspector leaves, he tries his hardest to get out of trouble. also, if you argued that an inspector calls is really a morality play, then you could see mr birling as representing the deadly sins of greed and pride, both things that priestly attacked capitalists for., at the beginning of the play, mr birling is described as “heavy looking” which immediately reminds us of a large, well fed, rich man, enjoying the luxuries of life. his “easy manners” but “provincial speech” remind us that although he is now rich (as symbolised by his knowledge of manners) he is from working class roots (provincial means from the country, or of a lower class.) mr birling is one of those men who had made money during the industrial revolution and, priestley argues, was then exploiting the working classes for his own profit., during the opening exchanges over dinner, birling shows off to gerald croft – his daughter’s new fiancé – by mentioning some rather expensive port he bought, and then gives a long and stuffy speech about how lucky his children are to be born into a time of such good fortune. throughout the speech priestley uses a lot of dramatic irony as he mentions birling’s belief that there would be no labour issues (despite the fact that the russian revolution was just five years away;) there would be no war in germany (despite two being on the horizon,) and – in a moment of comedy – that the titanic was “unsinkable.” throughout this speech, audience members are reminded of how little we know about the future, and how important it is that we prepare for the unexpected. birling is shown to be arrogant, small minded, and selfish; all features that a socialist like priestley would expect to see in a capitalist like birling., priestly times the inspector’s arrival so that he cuts birling off during one of his selfish rants: “a man has to mind his own business and look after himself,” he is saying as the doorbell rings. his initial response to the inspector is immediately defensive: he delivers a short speech detailing the members of the local police force that he knows, and the fact that he used to be mayor. the inspector seems uninterested though. throughout their exchange birling makes it clear that he feels no responsibility saying a number of times that he had nothing to do with this “wretched” girl’s death. the use of this adjective is interesting as “wretched” can mean poor or downtrodden, but it can also mean disliked and disgusting; birling, we have to assume, feels both are true. at one point he argues, perfectly summarising priestley’s feelings about the attitude of people like birling: “i can't accept any responsibility. if we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody we’d had anything to do with, it would be very awkward.”, during the remainder of the play, mr birling continues to reveal himself as being selfish and without regret. he is continually worried about the threat to his dreamt of knighthood and, when the chance arises, is even happy to direct all the blame at his young son, eric. he also tries to bribe the inspector, offering him “thousands” now it has all gone wrong, despite the fact that he wouldn’t pay her even a few shillings more at the time. throughout act 3, it is mr birling who leads the campaign to recognise the inspector as being a fraud and he is the most relieved when it turns out that there is no dead girl. however, unlike sheila, he isn’t relieved that no-one had died but is simply pleased to have saved his own hide., however, as the main character in the play mr birling receives both the opening and closing lines. in the end, it is him who is stuck, holding the phone and revealing that there is and “inspector on the way,” and in many ways it is him that the audience will be most pleased to see get his just deserts., what is the role of the inspector in an inspector calls , an inspector calls is a parable that was set during the belle époque (meaning the beautiful period) which lasted from 1870-1914. in the play, a family have their dinner party interrupted by an inspector who comes to visit. though this is a morality play in the traditional sense, its moral compass is very much set by the author’s belief in socialism ., the inspector arrives at a critical point. mr birling, the patriarch of his family, is delivering a lecture to his son and future son-in-law, about how “men must look after themselves…” in this way he is exposing his deep selfishness – one that priestly believed was at the heart of all capitalists. at this point there is a “sharp ring on the doorbell,” the adverb perhaps foreshadowing how the inspectors arrival will cut through the birlings’ veneer of respectability ., almost as soon as he arrives, mr birling reminds him of his own social standing – that he used to be mayor and has played golf with the chief inspector. the fact that mr birling is threatening the inspector is barely concealed , though the inspector brushes it aside. as a morality play, all the characters in an inspector calls represent something else - an ideal or social group or class. here, the birlings represent the wealthy and privileged elite while the inspector represents the newly educated middle classes, who would rise up and form a bridge between the elite and the working classes below them. the inspector, as becomes clear, is here to ensure that the birlings do not get away with how they treated eva smith., the inspector is described as giving an “impression of massiveness.” this is interesting as it makes it clear that he isn’t massive but should give that “impression.” as a direction this is a bit of a nightmare for a casting agent . he shouldn’t be big, but should have a gravitas that makes him seem huge. fortunately, however, priestley has written a part that gives every opportunity for moral superiority for an actor., also, from the moment he arrives the stage directions call for the lighting to change from “pink and intimate” – perhaps reflecting the rose - tinted spectacles through which the birlings view the world – and to something more “harsh.” perhaps this change is designed to highlight how the inspector’s arrival puts the birlings behaviour in the spotlight or exposes the lies they kept hidden in the shadows ., the first to fall to his inspection is mr birling, who sacked eva after she arranged for a strike amongst his workers while they demanded more pay. though birling admitted that she was a good worker, he clearly saw his profits threatened by her behaviour and made an example of her. mr birling’s children, however, do not share his selfishness and, as his son points out, “why shouldn’t they try for higher wages we try for bigger profits.” in many ways this quote exposes the selfish, unreasonable nature of capitalists : that they see their own right to desire more profits as god given , while those who resist are “troublemakers” and “cranks.”, after mr birling, the inspector turns to sheila, who had eva sacked from her job in a local department store. it is clear from the story – which sheila tells – that she was jealous of eva’s good looks. it is also clear, however, that sheila deeply regrets her actions. not long after this, mrs birling comments that sheila’s feelings have been changed and claims that the inspector has made an “impression” on her. this is a telling word – an “impression” is something that is the result of pressure, as though she’s been bullied into seeing things differently; but it is also something that often disappears over time. mrs birling’s feelings are clear: that the inspector’s ideas have affected sheila, but only fleetingly . the inspector replies dryly , acknowledging that he will often have an effect on the young. in many ways this reflects the old adage that young people are more socialist by nature, gradually turning to the more self-centred right as they grow. this is certainly the point that is being made by priestley, as the inspector affects the younger generation far more than their elders., after sheila, he turns to gerald who, again, reveals his own role in the death of eva. by this stage she is known as daisy renton – a name that perhaps reflects the fact her position: daisies are simple flowers that call to mind the innocence of daisy chains; while the appearance of “rent” in her name reminds us of what she did to her body in order to survive., the play continues to get darker as the inspector turns to mrs birling. under pressure she tells the inspector, and the audience, about how she turned away a young pregnant woman and that if the inspector was doing his job properly he should be chasing down the father. at this point, the audience know that she is talking about eric and are tensely waiting for the big reveal. in many respects it is also at this point that the audience is forced to reflect on the nature of this play: up until this moment, the action seems relatively realistic and, although the focus has been on only one character at any time, the focus has shifted around the room without any seeming construction . this time, however, the structure is too neat to be believed; it’s too well constructed to maintain the illusion of realism , and we know that we are watching a parable in which the inspector has an almost divine control over the action., after exposing the family’s “crimes” the inspector finally delivers his closing speech, which has all the hallmarks of a sermon that is delivered to the audience as much as it is to the family. in it, he reminds us of all the eva smiths and john smiths there are in the world, and that we are “one body.” here, the inspector is addressing both the audience in 1945 and the audience in 1912. the telling difference was the two world wars, during which the working classes proved themselves to be every bit as strong and resilient as their “social superiors.” the sense of national bonding that took place during the wars led to significant social changes in the uk, not least the creation of the nhs and the welfare state, and it was characters like the inspector (and priestley) who made sure this happened., his final warning, however, that “if we do not learn this lesson we will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish,” has a slightly different meaning in the two time periods. for the family in 1912 it was prophetic ; but for an audience in 1945 it would have been suggesting that the wars were almost a punishment for their behaviour, and a way of suggesting that if they didn’t embrace socialism now then the wars, and all the horrors that came with them, would return again., at the end of the play, the birlings receive a phone call which tells them that a real police inspector is on the way, to talk about a girl who has recently died. this final moment raises questions about the role of the inspector goole we’ve just watched, and it is at this point that his name seems important: is he a goole, or a ghoul, or something else from some other world is he some angelic messenger send to bring divine judgement that question is never answered, though the audience – or the young ones at least – should have no doubts that his understanding of the world is from a “higher” place., another essay on the role of the inspector in an inspector calls ., this essay's structure is as follows:, a summary paragraph, how the inspector is introduced, mr birling and the inspector – good for ao2, a “panic” paragraph – without quotes – that picks up on some key moments from the rest of the play – good for ao1, the inspector at the end, in the play an inspector calls, a police inspector brings judgement to a rich family who live in 1912. the play is a morality play, in which each of the characters represents a particular role or opinion. in this morality play, the inspector promotes a socialist understanding of the world in a way that reflects the views of the play’s author jb priestley., when the inspector arrives he cuts off mr birling’s lecture when he is saying that “ a man must look after himself and his family …” this interruption symbolises the way that inspector is going to stop mr birling’s views. also, it says that there is a “ sharp ring on the doorbell .” the word “ sharp ” suggests that the inspector will cut through mr birling’s selfish ideas. also, from the moment he arrives the stage directions call for the lighting to change from “ pink and intimate ” to something more “ harsh .” this is because the birlings see the world through as being nice and friendly while the inspector will bring a “ harsh ” judgement on them., in the play, the inspector works as a foil to mr birling’s selfish capitalism. at the beginning of the play, mr birling calls socialists “ cranks ” – which means crazy – and says that if we all listened to socialists we’d be like “ bees in a hive .” this remark criticises socialists as bees lack individuality, they work almost like a big machine, and only do what they’re told and mr birling doesn’t want the world to be like this. the inspector, however, believes that we are “ members of one body ” and that we are “ responsible for each other .” in this way, the inspector is talking about the socialist ideas which suggest that because we all live together we should look after each other. in fact, he goes on to suggest that if we don’t learn to do this we will “ taught it in fire and blood and anguish .” this is clearly a reference to the two world wars which were fought between the time the play was set and when it was written. it is also telling that mr birling didn’t think the wars would happen – he would probably have referred to that as being an idea from some kind of “ crank .”, at the beginning of the play mr birling threatens the inspector by saying that he plays golf with the chief inspector. the inspector, however, doesn’t care and carries on his investigation. throughout the play, the inspector acts like he doesn’t care about the characters social standings and only wants to focus on the facts. he is someone logical and he doesn’t care what people think of him. he just wants the truth about eva’s death. he also has a habit of looking “hard” at the person he is addressing. this is because he is inspecting them, almost as though he’s looking through them and into their soul., in the end the inspector leaves and we are left unsure as to whether he was real or not. however, because his name is inspector goole – which sounds similar to ghoul (which is a kind of spirit or ghost) – the audience would be within their rights to think of him as a kind of spiritual prophet or divine messenger., a third essay on the role of the inspector in an inspector calls , jb priestley uses the story of an inspector calls to contrast the differences between upper/upper-middle and working class people in society during the edwardian times. the inspector questions the birling family to think about the consequences of their actions on others – predominately the working class and people whom they believe to be inferior to them. priestley uses the inspector to make society question their morals and think about accepting responsibility for their actions. each character reacts differently to the inspector and priestley uses this to represent capitalist vs socialist ideals., - nice opening – clear and specific and leaves the examiner comfortable that you know what you’re doing. may be a bit long – though it is all meaningful, when the inspector enters the birling household, the stage directions states that the lights change from ‘pink and intimate’ to ‘brighter and harder’. this shows how the presence of the inspector changes the atmosphere and how he is here for a purpose. the lighting change from ‘pink and intimate’ to ‘brighter and harder’ almost shows how the inspector is going to burst the birling’s protected, capitalist bubble. the idea of the lights being ‘brighter and harder’ create the idea of a spotlight shining on the birling family and how the inspector is there to expose them to the truth. in the stage directions, it also says that the inspector ‘creates an impression of massiveness’. this shows that although the birling’s are superior to him in class, the inspector still holds the authority over them all. it could also be foreshadowing that the inspector is going to create a lasting ‘impression’ over the birling family and impact their lives hopefully for the better., - super cool lots of detail, specific things being said and focusing on sections of the text. this is what you want to do, in act one, mr birling makes several threats to the inspector about his connections with the chief constable. this shows how mr birling feels threatened and uncomfortable with the inspectors presence. he tries to assert his authority over the inspector to protect himself and his pride as he’s being questioned by someone who is inferior to himself. he doesn’t want to damage his reputation and all he is thinking about is himself. this represents the capitalist society and how they refuse to think of any but themselves and how they will go to any measure to protect their reputation. mr birling also tries to emphasise his importance to the inspector by mentioning gerald and his family name. he says, “perhaps i ought to explain first that this is mr gerald croft – the son of sir george croft – you know, crofts limited.” by mentioning gerald’s family name, it shows how mr birling is trying to intimidate the inspector. also, mr birling could be mentioning the croft name to try to make himself feel more in control of the situation and back in the superior position in the room. priestley uses the reaction of mr birling to the inspector to represent how people of the upper capitalist class use their positions of power as an excuse to be ignorant to their actions. priestley wanted make people aware of this to questions their own ignorance., - again, this is great. you show a clear understanding of the relationship between birling and the inspector and clearly explain the power dynamic in the room, at the end of the play, the inspector makes a big final speech to the birling family. it opens with a reminder that there are thousands of “john smiths and eva smiths” in the world. this reminds the audience that we all have to accept responsibility for our actions and realise it is not enough to only think of ourselves but we must think of others as well. the inspector then goes on to say that “we don't live alone. we are members of one body. we are responsible for each other.” these three concise sentences summarise the lesson priestley was trying to convey to the audience. by keeping the sentences short but powerful, it leaves a lasting impression on the birling family but more importantly, the audience. this links to the beginning stage direction of the inspector creating an ‘impression of massiveness’. he then warns the family (and audience) that if ‘men don’t soon learn their lesson they will be taught in fire and blood and anguish’. this is a reference to the many years of war that had taken place between when the play was set and when it was performed. it could be seen to be served as a warning to the people that they need to change their actions or history will repeat itself., - really good as well. you’ve focused in on specific techniques here and shown a clear understanding of how those techniques have effects., overall, this is a very good essay – it’s got a wide range of detailed quotes, points and pieces of analysis. it could be improved with a few moments where you zoom in on specific words and explore the meaning of them – think about mr birling saying he “can’t” take responsibility, or mrs birling saying she “won’t” take responsibility and the inspector saying “we are responsible.” this kind of link will push this essay up into the 8-9 category., what is the significance of the ending in an inspector calls , in effect, ‘an inspector calls’ has arguably three endings, or climaxes. the first is the final speech of the inspector, before he exits dramatically, walking ‘straight out’. the second is as the family think it all may have been a ‘fake’. the third represents the justice in the final words of the play., priestly ensures that the inspector says little in the way of moral judgment until just before he exits. this in itself increases dramatic tension – the audience is waiting for a confrontation which is dependent on all the facts of the story finally emerging. his final speech is based on the great moral authority he has gained through the entirety of the play and is in a sense cathartic. as an ‘inspector’, he is symbolic of the moral and legal authority of the police force. ‘inspecting’ carries the idea of sifting carefully though the actions of the birlings in a detailed and objective manner. priestley adds objectivity and legal precision to the inspector’s character; thus by the climax of his investigation, we, the audience, instinctively trust his moral conclusions also. there is a sense of relief in hearing the birlings finally being condemned for their actions., the inspector’s final speech is, in tone, almost a sermon. the frequent use of blunt, short diction is combined with imperatives which make him seem almost a preacher or a prophetic figure, as he tells the birlings to “remember this”, and tells them that “we are responsible for each other.” although he uses often the first person plural to emphasise their common humanity, he is also accusatory with his use of ‘you’ as he threatens them with what will come if they fail to learn this lesson. the imagery priestley draw from is biblical by nature. from the eucharist service, the inspector uses the biblical metaphor that we are all “members of one body”. the well-known nature of this metaphor makes it seemingly self-evidently true to the audience. the apocalyptic imagery that follows is equally well-known, as the inspector promises “fire and blood and anguish”. the tricolon is heavily emphatic and emotive – the birlings’ rejection of it, which follows swiftly, creates a further sense of their moral vacuity. this sermonic end to the inspector’s presence onstage makes him seem a didactic mouthpiece for the play – he speaks in effect as much to the audience as to the birlings. although it is a relatively brief and restrained speech, nonetheless it is a powerful end – it seems – to the drama., birling’s absence of moral epiphany is enacted in the second ‘ending’ of the play in the ‘huge sigh of relief’ he emits when he discovers that the inspector is not actually from the police station. he rejects the inspector’s final words through this stage direction which creates a dramatic hyperbole that it is impossible for the audience to miss. eva smith’s name suggests that she represents all of the ordinary humanity, eva suggesting eve of genesis, symbolically the mother of humanity, and smith being a stereotypical working-class surname. thus birling’s ‘huge’ indifference is, symbolically, to the suffering of any human being, particularly those who are his socially inferior. indeed, his estimations of people’s worth have been entirely based on their money or their social connections; early on in the play he attempts at first to threaten the inspector by explicitly ‘warning him that the chief constable, colonel roberts, is an ‘old friend’ of his. birling’s ‘relief’ therefore is that his place in society is not damaged after all – even though it is based on corruption and inhumanity towards whose who are weaker and more socially vulnerable than him. thus birling has learned nothing at all in the play., further, birling is ‘triumphant’ when he decides that the story is nothing more than ‘moonshine’. ‘triumph’ suggests victory and winning – birling’s delight is based on his perception that he will not be in any way held to account for his misdeeds. ‘moonshine’ is a dismissive colloquialism – priestley uses this to emphasise that there is no emotional impact whatsoever on birling for the suffering of eva smith and those whom she represents. this is accentuated by mrs birling’s suggestion that in the morning eric and sheila will be as ‘amused’ as they are. the tragedy of what happened to eva through her circumstances and through the undeserved actions of others is in effect diminished to a joke. priestley ensures that this anticlimactic interpretation of the play’s events by mrs birling is morally repugnant to the audience. the older birlings and gerald are villainesque, antagonistic figures., sheila is partly redeemed from the birling’s self-seeking immorality. sheila’s response to birling’s ‘relief’ is to accuse him of ‘pretending’ that all is well. this accusation of play-acting creates an ironic role-reversal, as though birling is the one childishly refusing to engage with reality, and she becomes the parent-figure who rebukes him for his immaturity. this childishness is not an indication of birling’s innocence, but of his lack of responsibility. sheila is the youthful one in the conversation, but she is the one who is vulnerable to the corruption of her parents, and she lacks meaningful power. partly also because of her gender, she is, like eva, the victim of birling’s philosophy of greed – and yet the awakening of her moral awareness is presented as a coming-of-age epiphany. she learns to reject the selfishness and inhumanity of her parents as she realises that all the working-class are intrinsically human beings. she absorbs the relatively complex moral didacticism the inspector represents with regards to the interconnectedness of human society. this is particularly shown by her quoting the exact words of the inspector’s apocalyptic list of consequences if the rich fail to heed the social situation: she quotes his words of ‘fire and blood and anguish’. although she shows no explicit awareness of the social apocalypse of which the inspector warns, she recalls what ‘he made me feel’. her emotional engagement is presented in ironic juxtaposition with her parents’ emotional disengagement. priestley redeems her partly to show the morally repugnant nature of the birlings’ lack of redemption, through juxtaposing their response with hers., the unrepentant birlings are presented by priestley as grotesque not only through their failure to realise their wrong-doing, but also, and more importantly in their seeking of moral superiority over eva smith and the workers she represents. the callous self-righteousness they exhibit is best portrayed in mrs birling’s rhetorical question, ‘why shouldn’t we’ when sheila asks how they possibly can continue as they were before. the fact she considers the question to need no actual answer indicates her moral blindness – it indicates her assumption that the rightr of the powerful to abuse the poor is irrefutable and self-evident. priestley, through the drama, shows how society creates moral indifference to the working-class., the superficiality is also epitomised in gerald’s statement that ‘everything is all right now.’ this bland cliché becomes ironically extremely emotive for the audience as we know that the lack of a moral compass for the birlings and gerald means that others will be treated just as eva was. the superficiality of this analysis has great dramatic power to repulse the audience – and perhaps to begin to effect the social change priestley desired., the third and final ‘ending’ is mysterious. at one level, it satisfies the audience’s hope that there will be justice for eva. by instructing the actors to look ‘guiltily’ around, priestly ensures that the moral indifference of the second ending is not the concluding note of the play. birling speaking on the phone when the person has ‘rung off’ indicates also that his social authority is over; creating the sense that there is justice has lost what he really cared about. the inspector’s semi-comical surname, ‘goole’ also seems relevant right at the play’s climax. there is the suggestion that he did indeed in some way represent supernatural forces intervening in the birlings’ lives to bring justice for eva. however, the play by its nature ends inconclusively. in effect, we are left on a cliffhanger wondering what the ‘real’ police inspector will do. perhaps this reflects priestley’s aim for the audience to think about the play’s social message. the ending of ‘an inspector calls’ is a strong statement of the responsibility of those who seek money and social rank at the expense of humanity. it is strongly didactic and powerful., check this essay.

There are drastic differences that are seen in people who are born in different generations. One may argue that the younger generations are more impressionable and naive while the older generations are very hardheaded and assertive. By creating characters like Sheila and Eric with a large age gap between Mr. and Mrs. Birling in the play An Inspector Calls, tension is created through their differences clashing. J.B. Priestley’s use of contrasting characterization within the Birling family in the play An Inspector Calls creates tension and communicates his theme that one must take into consideration the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them.

The Birling’s children, Erica and Sheila, are presumed to be very naive and still listening and agreeing with their parent’s words due to their ages. Yet, thought the play both Eric and Sheila prove to be mentally mature and responsible while directly reflect the inspector’s message. Eric Birling was caught up in the complicated situation relating to the death of Eva Smith through his role in impregnating her. Although he is ashamed, he steps up to the plate and confesses his actions and even admits to the fact that “I wasn’t in love with her or anything”, yet he understands that his actions did produce consequences and he takes responsibility for them. He insists on giving her enough money to keep her going, even though it included stealing money from his father (Priestley 50). This action was done unjustly, yet it shows how determined Eric was in order to fix his mistake and take responsibility for his actions- exactly what the Inspector teaches. Sheila Birling, the sister of Eric, also starts out by admitting to her role in the death of Eva. She expresses her sorrow and regret for her actions stating how “It was my own fault… and if I could help her now, I would” right away (24-25). Even though she did not take action like Eric did, she still takes responsibility for her actions and shows that she really does care about the consequences she was unable to attend to. As the play continues and everyone finds out that inspector Goole was a fake, the parents of Sheila and Eric both start to downplay the events of that evening. Suddenly the tension starts to rise as soon as the children speak directly against their parents stating “if you must know it’s you two who are being childish” (55). Sheila is so disgusted by the actions of her parents, that her character takes an unpredictable turn and she evolves into a brave young woman annoyed enough to scold her own parents. Even Eric states directly to his parents that “well, I don’t blame you. But don’t forget i’m ashamed of you as well. Yes- both of you” (54). The characters Sheila and Eric create tension in the play through their differences regarding their view on taking responsibility that contrasts greatly with their parents. The fact that the younger generation is standing up to the older generation and doing unconventional actions like scolding them, the main theme of the novel is clearly represented.

The older generation in the Birling family consists of strong characters: unlikely to sway in their ideas easily, hard headed, and arrogant. Arthur too is confronted about his dealings with Eva Smith, but immediately states that “the girl has been causing trouble in the works. I was quite justified (19). Here, he is seemingly ok knowing that she was forced to kill herself all because of something that started out with him originally and a sign of regret is not to be found. The younger generation, prominently Sheila is verbally pointing out her contrasting viewpoint directly saying (to Mr. Birling) “I think it was a mean thing to do” (21). Tension is created as a result of her comment, but in a way she forces her father to re-examine at his actions by him hearing an opposite viewpoint and internally contemplate her and the Inspector’s message. Another situation that increases the tension overall is when Sheila hears her father describe Eva as cheap labour, and automatically she jumps in stating “but these girls aren’t cheap labour – they’re people” clearly showcasing the differences in the mindset of the two generations (19). Lastly, Mrs. Birling gets confronted with her mistake and does admit to her actions. Her arrogance shows through when she plainly lays out her thoughts to the inspector that “if you think you can bring any pressure to bear upon me, Inspector, you’re quite mistaken. Unlike the other three, I did nothing I’m ashamed of or that won’t bear investigation… You have no power to change my mind” and like Mr. Birling does not have a hint of regret in her (44). Sybil Birling is blinded to the problems within her household and herself, and therefore tension is created when she directly contradicts the viewpoints of her children. The theme of the play is brought out because of this, when the children start to argue their point about accepting responsibility for their actions’ consequences.

Through tension between the characters, the main theme that we don’t live alone, are members of one body, and are responsible for each other is revealed. Sadly for this to be revealed, tension is built greatly dividing the Birling family- the younger vs the older generation. The children desperately try to get their parents to accept what they believe is the inspector’s lesson and purpose for visiting, yet Arthur and Sybil are set on the idea that they are just “the famous younger generation who know it all. And they can’t even take a joke” (72). Although it may be true that the inspector is not real and the older generation will never learn, the main theme is being communicated successfully to the audience. By looking at Mr. and Mrs. Birling and the way they instigate an attack on themselves by their children, the audience feels disgusted by them and the theme reaches the audience.

Mr Hanson's English

Discovering english and film, an inspector calls – the importance of eva smith.

Eva Smith, it could be argued, is the most important character in An Inspector Calls: from the moment her name is first mentioned, her shadow hangs over every page. Indeed, when the play is over and we read back over those first scenes, her presence can be felt from the very beginning: from Gerald’s evasive manoeuvres when reminded of his elusiveness ‘last summer’ to Birling’s enthusiasm for lower costs and higher prices which foreshadow his treatment of Eva Smith.

This week we are looking at the importance of Eva Smith. If you’re looking for a fantastic revision resource for this, then look no further than Mr Salles video on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Rkaxr66f4 This is a superbly detailed analysis of Eva’s role and her importance to the play.

Remember that names are important – the writer has chosen these for a reason and will spend some time on deciding on a character’s name. For example, Sybil Birling: the name ‘sybil’ derives from a mythological figure – a prophetess who could divine the future, whose prophecies often took the form of riddles. She asked Apollo to give her eternal life which he granted – with a twist: he gave her eternal life (and with it unbounded wisdom and knowledge) but not youth and she became so old and shrivelled, wishing only to die. In fact, in some versions of the myth, she is reduced to just a voice. The figure of the sybil thus becomes a metaphor for ‘being careful what you wish for’ as well as a reminder of our hubris and impotence – the sybil knows everything and nothing. If you think about Priestley’s character, she too offers the audience an insight into the future – she suggests that the Inspector look to the father of Eva Smith’s child if he wants to find the guilty party. In her apparent ‘wisdom’ she condemns herself of course to ‘eternal’ torment. ‘Be careful what you wish for’ is highly appropriate for Mrs Birling whose judgement on the father of Eva’s child is visited on Eric most dramatically in the final act of the play. Her voice becomes ridiculous and meaningless as we realise how callous she actually is. She knows everything – and nothing.

What about Eva?

Interestingly, the two names of Eva/Daisy also link to the idea of nature and an innocence lost. Eve is a symbol of ‘man’s downfall – excuse the lack of gender neutrality – but in the case of An Inspector Calls, she really does bring about a downfall: not of ‘mankind’ but of the Birlings and all they represent. The daisy of course is a common flower and reminds us of the name Smith in its commonality. However, Priestley is also asking us to question these assumptions: despite its ubiquity, the daisy can be a beautiful flower; despite her ‘popular’ name, there is nothing at all ‘ordinary’ about Eva.

This is a play about the exploitation of women. Remember that a method is anything that the writer does on purpose to create an effect. So Priestley’s choice of a woman as a victim of the Birlings’ greed and exploitation is deliberate. Not only does Eva represent the treatment of female workers during the Edwardian era but – as her name represents – she is a symbol of all woman at all times.

Understand Eva and you will understand the whole of the play.

The play was set in a period which felt the winds of change across the world. 1914 is often seen as the beginning of the modern age, the first world war bringing to an end the old world of certainty and progress. An Inspector Calls is set in 1912 – the year the Titanic sank, an event which itself can be seen as a symbol of humanity’s hubris. But this period in time also saw the rise of the suffragette movement which fought for women’s right to vote.

The clip is from a 2004 film called ‘Iron Jawed Angels’ starring Hilary Swank which tells the story of American suffragettes. In the film Swank’s character is force-fed as punishment for her hunger strike. You can find it here but be careful – it is quite disturbing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO70ZjZ0wrw

Women’s bodies became a site of conflict with the authorities. By controlling them, the old ruling guard of a patriarchal order could hang on to the ‘old ways’. Women were prevented from gathering in public places for fear that their radical ideas might spread. But as Carey Mulligan’s character declares in the recent film Suffragette, “We’re in every home. We’re half the human race. You can’t stop us all.”

Below are a series of slides from the lessons this week.

Look for a quote to support show how Eric, Gerald and Sheila reflect the idea that women were judged by their looks…

Some suggest (and the Inspector is amongst them) that Gerald ‘at least had some affection for her and made her happy for a time’. However, he could also be seen as an opportunist: he visits a regular ‘haunt’ of women of the town – why? Well, we know why but what does this tell us about him – he was, after all, in a serious relationship with Sheila Birling. He had the opportunity: Eva/Daisy was clearly in trouble, drawing unwelcome attention from Alderman Heggarty; he had the means – his friend had left town and there just happened to be some free rooms. He admits that he meant more to her than she to him and he ends the relationship when it suits himself. ‘Gallant’? I don’t think so.

Eric also treats Eva with little to no respect: look at these quotations here and think about how he uses language to cover up his violent and misogynistic behaviour.

Below are a few slides which we’ll be using in class to inspire some analytical writing. Notice that I’m trying to get students to ‘begin with AO3’ – see the last slide – as I feel that it enables them to write more meaningful analyses.

[email protected]

19 March 2021 24 April 2023

The role/function of Eva’s character in the play. In this series of articles we have looked at the role of each character in the play and what function they serve and how Priestley is using them. In terms of Eva Smith:

1. She is used to represent woman in general. Her name ‘Eva’ is very close to ‘Eve’, the name of the mother of humanity as per Abrahamic traditions. Smith is a very common name in England and in fact is used sometimes to refer to a very ordinary person. She is used to represent women but working class women specifically. She thus suffers two fold. First she is from the working class in a very classist society full of socio-economic inequality and in addition to that she is a woman in a heavily patriarchal and conservative society.

2. The reason we never hear her speak and she is physically absent in the play but constantly in our minds and in the conversations may have been deliberate and may have been done by Priestley to show how just as in the play the working class are hidden and voiceless so too are they in real life or in terms of the centres of power. Aristocrats, industrialists, politicians have voices in the places where decisions are made but the millions of working class do not have such a voice.

Though she is the most important person in the play as it is her life which has been lost and that of her child, and her suffering which is talked about, she has no visibility or voice and this seems to be representative of the working class poor who form the overwhelming majority of the British population at that time but whose interests are ignored by the state and elite who control the country.

There is also some confusion as to whether Daisy Renton or Eva Smith are the same person, but it is most likely that they are and it seems to be that Eva changed her name due to various reasons, this could possibly include the fact that having been dismissed from two jobs she may have felt compelled to avoid her identity as she may have been blacklisted by some in the small town where she lived or her name may have acquired a bad reputation. So in this article we will treat Eva and Daisy as one and the same person because all the evidence indicates it.

Eva, a hard worker

We learn different bits of information from the different characters in the play about Eva. One thing we learn is that even the money-obsessed, selfish Mr Birling acknowledges that she was a hard worker.

‘ she’d been working in one of our machine shops for over a year. A good worker too. In fact, the foreman there told me he was ready to promote her into what we call a leading operator – head of a small group of girls. ‘

This is important. We know that Eva is not lazy, but despite working hard she is failed by the society which she lives in and its system. Despite being a hard worker she becomes destitute, depressed and dies. Some on the political right would argue that the working class must work hard. However what if, as Eva did, they actually do work hard but still end up in poverty?

Eva/Daisy, a person of integrity and morality.

We also know that Eva is a person of integrity. We know this the inspector says to Eric:

‘The girl discovered that this money you were giving her was stolen, didn’t she?’

To which Eric replies:

‘Yes. That was the worst of all. She wouldn’t take any more, and she didn’t want to see me again.’

In the eyes of the heavily classist British elite at the time, the working class poor were socially inferior and of inferior moral quality. The person who embodies classism the most in the play is Mrs Birling who makes some awfully cruel statements about Eva which include denying her the characteristic of having any sort of morality as we see in the quote:

‘“a girl of that sort would [not] ever refuse money”

So we know that Eva Smith, is honest and hardworking and would not take stolen money.

We know this from the accounts of two wealthy, rich man.

Again Eva herself cannot come out and say she is honest and hardworking. She has no voice in the play or at the Birlings’ dinner table, in the same way that the working class have no voice at the table of British governance.

Despite being honest and hardworking, society fails her. Her honesty might have even caused her death. She refused to take stolen money from Eric, money which would have well helped her to survive as £50 in Britain at that time would have been at least equivalent to £5,000 in modern terms.

Eva, exploited and used physically and sexually.

Eva is exploited both as a working class person for her cheap, underpaid labour and also as a woman for sexual purposes. In fact the inspector says to Eric:

‘“Just used her for the end of a stupid drunken evening, as if she was an animal, a thing, not a person.”

The voiceless Eva, the invisible Eva who is at the mercy of the good will of the rich is described by the inspector as if she is just a ‘thing’ and ‘not a person’. For Birling, Eva was almost equivalent to a machine in his factory in that she was needed for making products. Her humanity was not of great importance to him, only her use and benefit for making goods, much in the same way a machine was of no sentimental value but only served the purpose of making items and thus helping to make money. Capitalism de-humanised people like Eva. It made them ‘things’ akin to factory machines and also ‘animals’.

Eva was treated as an animal in two key ways. First of all animals are used in work e.g. in farming, horses plough the land, donkeys and horses transport goods. Secondly animals are sometimes used to provide pleasure to people for entertainment e.g. in certain sports around the world which include racing, bullfighting and even cock-fighting. Animals are mounted and ridden upon by people, women such as Eva are mounted upon at times physically by men during acts of physical intercourse.

This line from the inspector is very powerful in Priestley’s critique of the de-humanising and cold nature of capitalism.

A sewing machine, an object, a ‘thing’ used for industrial production. Some could argue that capitalists viewed workers like Eva Smith as having the same value as ‘things’ such as machines, only serving the purpose of producing things and making them richer.

A donkey being used to transport items, the inspector compared Eva’s treatment to the treatment of animals.

Potential for rebellion.

The last words of the inspector are this: But just remember this.

One Eva Smith has gone – but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We don’t live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they well be taught it in fire and bloody and anguish. Good night.

The treatment of Eva Smith is appalling and her end is tragic, but Priestley mentions there are millions of Eva Smiths and he adds ‘John Smiths’ too.

Why does Priestley mention the word ‘millions’, not just once, not just twice, but three times. No one can be sure but it might be to signify that though the working class are very weak, victims of injustice and bullying by the rich they outnumber the upper class, the rich not just by millions, but by ‘millions and millions and millions’. In terms of sheer numbers the rich and thus the state are outnumbered vastly. The rich are dependent upon the working class just as one part of the body is dependent on other parts of the body. All parts of the body are inter-connected or in Priestley’s words above, ‘intertwined’.

A communist mural depicting a workers revolution with a working class woman, as Eva Smith herself was, in the foreground.

Priestely, as mentioned above, refers to ‘John Smiths’, that is to the working class men of that time. Men possess greater physical strength and it was the working class men that were enlisted to form the British army and to fight wars. What if a discontent working class composed of both men and women mobilised not to fight the German state but to fight British state and its elite?

‘An Inspector Calls’ was written against the backdrop of massive tension and hostility between the American-led capitalist west and the Soviet-led communist east. The Tsar of Russia and his family

The last Tsar of Russia and his family. T he Russian empire was replaced by a socialist state which was in theory meant to be for workers. ‘An Inspector Calls’ was first performed in communist Russia (then part of the USSR) itself.

We cannot say for certain that Priestley is using the inspector to hint at a revolution against the unfair capitalist system . We cannot say for certain that Priestley was saying to the British elite that if they did not address the grievances of the millions of Eva Smiths in the country that the ‘fire’ and ‘anguish’ he refers to is a workers revolution. We cannot say this for certain but we can certainly wonder or suspect that is what he was alluding to.

Through the story of Eva Smith, Priestley is showing many things. He shows us that contrary to the arrogance and prejudice of the classist elite at the time the working class are human beings like themselves who also have standards of morality and integrity e.g. the way Eva/Daisy refused to take stolen money from Eric or did not consider him worth marrying. He shows us how precarious their lives could be and how it could be devastated by the actions of the wealthy. He shows us that even if a member of the working class is honest and hard working they could, rather than succeed in Britain of that time, ultimately end up dying in poverty with no social safety net and no state to support them, though they themselves might be people of relatively noble character as the hardworking and honest Eva was.

The last words of the inspector can be interpreted as an ominous threat . In the context of the play, a threat to the Birlings, but in a wider context to the British elite themselves. A threat which would provoke them in to changing and reforming their society due to firstly a sense of being appalled at the suffering of their countrymen and women but also a sense of fear of the consequences if they did not try and make a better, fairer Britain. One Eva Smith might die, but if millions of Eva and John Smiths acted in unison there could be no stopping them.

Useful vocabulary for GCSE students in essays and exam questions.

Dehumanise – Eva is dehumanised. Birling sees her primarily as a tool with which to make money, his son though not as bad treats her one night as a tool for sexual pleasure. This exploitation of Eva/Daisy for pleasure is almost akin to treating her like an animal. Though it must be added in the long run aside from that particular night, Eric does try to help Eva.
Interconnected– For different things to be connected or linked to each other. Priestley shows we cannot just live pretending other classes do not exist but we are all interconnected whether we like it or not.
Integrity – Eva/Daisy is a person of integrity as she refuses to take the stolen money that Eric wants to give her.
Classist– To have a prejudice towards people based on class or viewing them as inferior. Mrs Birling in particular is extremely classist.
Revolution– As one person, Eva Smith could do nothing, but if millions of Eva Smiths rebelled there could be a workers revolution as had happened in Russia in 1917, five years after the play is set.

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

Exemplar Essay: Eva Smith

How does Priestley use the character of Eva Smith to present ideas about responsibility?

‘An Inspector Calls’ is about how people should be more responsible. Priestley explores the theme of class through the treatment of working class Eva Smith by the wealthy Birlings and Gerald Croft when she is in different situations throughout the play.

During the inspector’s questioning, Priestley presents Arthur Birling as an irresponsible and selfish man. When the inspector questions Arthur Birling about Eva Smith’s request for a payrise, Priestley has Arthur Birling state ‘I refused, of course’. In other words, Arthur Birling is proud to admit that he denied Eva Smith a small pay rise. Priestley’s use of the words ‘of course’ not only indicate that Birling feels he was right to refuse a pay rise, but also that he doesn’t expect to be questioned about his actions. Later in the play, Priestley demonstrates that Arthur Birling is very selfish with his money by having him say ‘I’d give thousands ’. In other words, Birling is happy to pay thousands of pounds to the inspector in order to keep him quiet about the scandal with Eva Smith . The contrast between the thousands of pounds that Birling is willing to pay and the small pay rise that Eva Smith asked for demonstrates how selfish and irresponsible Birling is because he clearly had the money to give the pay rise but only wants to use the money for himself. Priestley hoped his 1945 audience would feel angry towards selfish Capitalist businessmen like Arthur Birling.

During the inspector’s questioning, Priestley present s Sybil Birling as a selfish and prejudiced woman. When the inspector questions Sybil about how she knew Eva Smith, Priestley presents Sybil as prejudiced by having her refer to the working classes as ‘girls of that class’. Priestley’s use of the words ‘that class ’ suggest that Sybil is snobbish and superior, looking down on the working classes. It is clear that she allows her prejudice to influence her decisions about who to help. Priestley uses Sybil Birling’s attitude to criticise private charities in 1912. He hoped his 1945 audience would feel angry t hat man wealthy people ran charities to make themselves look good, while denying help to people who needed it most. Priestley also hoped his 1945 audience would realise that they needed help from the welfare state, like the NHS, which would mean that the poorest people in society could access help when they most needed it.

During the inspector’s questioning, Priestley presents Eric and Sheila as guilty and ashamed. When Sheila is questioned by the inspector about the way she treated Eva Smith, Priestley makes clear she feels responsible by having her state ‘I started it’. In other words, Sheila admits that her actions triggered a chain of events that led to Eva Smith’s death. Similarly, Priestley has Eric refer to his actions as ‘hellish’ , which suggests he feels extremely guilty about the way he forced himself upon Eva Smith while he was drunk. Whereas Sheila and Eric feel guilty and admit their part in Eva Smith’s death, Arthur and Sybil do not. During their dialogue with the inspector, Priestley has Arthur state ‘I can’t accept any responsibility’ and Sybil say repeatedly that she was ‘perfectly justified’. Priestley hoped his 1945 audience would feel surprised by the difference in attitudes between the older and younger characters and realise that they needed to behave more like Sheila and Eric in order to build a fairer, more equal society.

‘An Inspector Calls’ is about how people should be more responsible. Priestley explores the theme of responsibility through the treatment of Eva Smith, a working class girl, to demonstrate the need for change in society. Through the character of Eva Smith, Priestley demonstrates the destructive nature of capitalism and encourages his audience to become more socialist.

Priestley explores the hierarchy between Arthur Birling, a wealthy businessman, and Eva Smith, a working class girl, to demonstrate the inequality of the class system in 1912 England. During the inspector’s interrogation of Arthur Birling, the audience learns that Eva Smith was fired from Arthur Birling because she asked for higher wages. By choosing to have the workers strike, something that was becoming increasingly popular in England, Priestley suggests that wealthy businessmen were not responsibly supporting their workers. During the questioning, Priestley has Birling reveal that he ‘refused of course’ to give his workers more money which implies Birling intends to pay his workers as little as possible so he has more profit. Priestley’s use of the words ‘of course’ in Birling’s speech convey that Birling believes he was justified and it was an obvious decision to make. They could also show that Birling had no intention of providing his workers with a pay rise and was determined to maintain power over them by refusing to give into their demands for more money. By having Birling appear so confident in his running of the business, Priestley might be implying many businessmen were irresponsible, favouring their own profit over fulfilling their duty to support their workers. As a capitalist, Arthur Birling, along with many other businessmen, believed that the key to success was hard work and looking out for yourself. Through his unfair treatment of Eva Smith and the rest of his working class workers, Priestley uses Birling’s character to demonstrate the consequences of this capitalist viewpoint and to convince his audience that socialism is the way forward.

Priestley’s portrayal of Sybil Birling as a snobbish and superior woman highlights the damaging effects of prejudice in an unequally divided society. During the questioning of Sybil Birling, Priestley suggests the preconceptions wealthy people had of the poor were irresponsible and led to the downfall of many working class people. While being questioned, Priestley has Sybil describe the working class as ‘girls of that class’ which immediately conveys the judgemental attitude Sybil Birling had towards the women of the working class, including Eva Smith. Priestley’s use of the noun ‘girls’ is derogatory and could imply that Sybil Birling views them as so inferior that they do not even deserve to be classed as women. This snobbish view is also expressed through the words ‘that class’ which implies Sybil views all of the working class as the same. Priestley suggests that Sybil is prejudiced against Eva Smith and all of the working class because she believes them to be immoral, a view that was common amongst wealthy people in England in 1912. Additionally, Sybil uses her superiority to determine which working class women are deserving of her help. Sybil uses her influence to refuse Eva help at the charity and believes she was ‘perfectly justified’ in this decision. Ignoring her responsibility to help all women who come to the charity, Sybil chooses to refuse Eva help based on her prejudiced view that Eva is lying and immoral. Priestley makes clear through the adjective ‘perfectly’ that Sybil is stubborn in the view that she was right to turn Eva away and, therefore, has no sympathy for Eva. By presenting Sybil in this way, Priestley could be encouraging his audience to consider whether it was right that wealthy people, who had no sympathy for the working class because they had no understanding of the difficulties they faced, were allowed to run the only charities available for the poor in 1912. Perhaps Priestley wanted to use Sybil’s character to criticise the wealthy people who ran charities to improve their status rather than helping the poor. He could also be emphasising the need to move forward towards organisations like the NHS.

Priestley uses Gerald and Eric, a representation of young wealthy men, to criticise the way working class women were taken advantage of. Both men met Eva Smith at the Palace Theatre Bar, a place where prostitutes go to find work from middle and upper class men. They meet her at a time when she is desperate and hungry as a result of being thrown out of her job with Mr Birling and at Milwards. Although Priestley implies Gerald had good intentions at first towards Eva, it is clear that Gerald used Eva’s vulnerability to his own advantages. While being questioned by the inspector, Gerald reveals that he felt ‘sorry’ for Eva Smith. Priestley has Gerald imply that he only gave Eva Smith money and a place to stay because he wanted to help her. However, it becomes clear that Gerald used his money and power in order to take advantage of Eva. By allowing his interactions with Eva to develop into an affair, Gerald becomes irresponsible because he knows the relationship cannot proceed any further. Priestley insinuates that Gerald knew by helping Eva, it would develop into something more which suggests that he intended to take advantage of Eva’s vulnerability. Unlike Gerald, Eric does offer to marry Eva but only when he realises that Eva is pregnant with his child which suggests he only offered in order to protect his reputation. Although Eric eventually takes responsibility for his actions, to begin with Priestly suggests Eric used his superior status to force himself on Eva. Priestley could be using Eric and Gerald to indicate that many wealthy gentlemen used their money and power to take advantage of working class women and then irresponsibly hide their actions. Perhaps Priestley wanted his audience to realise that wealthy gentlemen needed to take more responsibility for their actions and to recognise the devastating effects of taking advantage of working class women.

Priestley uses Sheila Birling’s character to criticise the sheltered lives wealthy young women were forced to lead. By having Sheila refer to her parents as ‘mummy’ and ‘daddy’ at the beginning of the play, Priestley conveys that Sheila is heavily influenced by her parents. Priestley insinuates that Sheila is only exposed to the capitalist and selfish viewpoints of her parents resulting in her also sharing these ideas. The nouns ‘mummy’ and ‘daddy’ could also show that Sheila looks up to her parents and respects their views. Priestley chooses to present Sheila as heavily influenced by her parents at the beginning of the play to demonstrate that Sheila, like many other wealthy young women at this time, has led a sheltered life and does not have an understanding of the difficulties faced by the working class. It is as a result of this sheltered life, that Sheila uses her power and wealth to have Eva Smith fired without realising the consequences of her actions. Pritely could be suggesting that bringing the younger generation up as capitalists influenced by their parents, society is only going to repeat its problems rather than getting better. Although Sheila mistreats Eva, she begins to realise the consequences of her actions and is willing to change. By the end of the play, Sheila states that she ‘started it’ conveying that she takes full responsibility for the way she treated Eva. The contrast from Sheila’s selfish nature at the beginning to the responsible woman she has become by the end of the play indicates that she has been influenced by the inspector’s socialist views. Priestley might have wanted to have Sheila’s character develop in this way to demonstrate that by allowing the younger generation to be influenced by others, they are more likely to inspire the need for change in society.

Through the questioning of these characters, Priestley encourages his audience to take responsibility themselves. Priestley chooses to have the Birlings and Gerald give their accounts of what happened with Eva to demonstrate they have the power in society because they are wealthy but use it irresponsibly. In contrast, he makes Eva Smith voiceless and powerless to convey the lack of power the working class had. Priestley makes clear that society is unequal and uses the terrible and unfair treatment of Eva Smith to encourage his audience to move towards a more responsible and socialist society where everyone is equal.

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — An Inspector Calls — How Guilt is Presented in “An Inspector Calls”

How Guilt is Presented in "An Inspector Calls"

Categories: An Inspector Calls Guilt

About this sample

Words: 595 |

Published: Sep 7, 2023

Words: 595 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

The manifestation of guilt, effects of guilt on characters, the theme of collective guilt, symbolism of eva smith.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Literature Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7 pages / 3216 words

2.5 pages / 1106 words

3.5 pages / 1580 words

3.5 pages / 1480 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on An Inspector Calls

J.B. Priestley's play "An Inspector Calls" delves into the complexities of societal attitudes and generational differences. The interplay between the older and younger characters serves as a lens through which themes of class, [...]

Mr. Arthur Birling, a prominent character in J.B. Priestley's play "An Inspector Calls," is a complex individual whose perspectives and actions offer insight into the prevailing attitudes of his time. This essay delves into the [...]

Some individuals possess greater authority than others. The possession of authority is beneficial and makes life more pleasant but although it brings so much ease to life, it can easily be abused to bring harm to others. In the [...]

How is Eric presented in An Inspector Calls? This essay analyzes Eric Birling as an influential and significant character in the play. Priestly uses Eric's character to show the change in the younger generation and his own [...]

How is Gerald presented in An Inspector Calls? To start the essay, the character of Gerald Croft is extremely significant, as he is the only perpetrator not to be a part of the Birling household. He is also the character who [...]

Priestley, J. B. (1945). An Inspector Calls. Heinemann.Brown, G. (1998). J.B. Priestley: An Inspector Calls and Other Plays. Cambridge University Press.Sutherland, J. (1973). J. B. Priestley: Playwright and Novelist. Routledge & [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

An Inspector Calls – Full Mark Essay L9 / A* grade

This is an example of a high grade A* / L9 essay for ‘An Inspector Calls’.

It was completed by myself, not in timed conditions, to set an example for high achieving students, so it is beyond the requirement of a high grade for GCSE. However, students are encouraged to read it and deconstruct it to get ideas for their own essays and structuring – it is also useful in terms of learning how to develop a sophisticated approach to essay phrasing, techniques, and vocabulary. I hope you enjoy reading it and find it helpful!

If you find this page useful you can take a look at our full ‘An Inspector Calls’ course here .

How does Priestley explore the issue of class in An Inspector Calls?

Class is arguably one of the central issues presented in the play, as it is because of her lower-class that Eva Smith is able to be so badly exploited, which leads to her tragic suffering and eventual suicide despite her intelligence, beauty, and kindness. We are exposed to the privileges that upper and middle-class men and women have, as well as the fact that they don’t always realise that they have greater opportunities and stability. As a socialist, Priestley certainly viewed the division between classes as a serious issue in his postwar society; the play ultimately tries to convey his message of social responsibility in order to minimise these rifts between the different classes.

According to Priestley, the upper classes cause issues in society due to their blind privilege. Gerald Croft, for instance, is an aristocrat whom Priestley describes as an ‘easy well-bred young man-about-town’. Priestley depicts Gerald as having an ‘easy’ lifestyle and demeanor due to his privileged social position; as a prominent up and coming businessman whose family are successful business owners, it could be argued that he has been handed his freedom and success without much effort or difficulty. The compound adjective ‘well-bred’ in particular displays Priestley’s socialist beliefs, as it implies that he is aware of yet disagrees with the fact that breeding is highly valued by the postwar British society and perhaps that family connections are more important than a person’s own character or intelligence; Sheila is only engaged to Gerald, after all, because Mr. Birling wants to secure business connections. Gerald’s flagrant exploitation of Eva’s kindness and beauty whilst being engaged to Sheila creates a layer of dramatic irony which criticises the idea that marriage for business purposes or family reasons is ever a positive or viable option. Though it could be argued that Gerald is a more sympathetic character than Sybil, he still demonstrates how the upper classes are so privileged and used to manipulate those around them that they are not even fully conscious of their behaviour. His excuse of continuing the affair with Eva because he felt ‘sorry for her’ could be interpreted as sensitivity, but it is likely that Priestley wanted to show instead how it demonstrates false sympathy, as he was only prepared to help Eva so long as she provided him with the affection that he craved. Additionally, Sybil as another upper-class figure demonstrates a different kind of high-class privilege: under the pretense of being charitable as she works for the ‘Brumley Women’s Charity’, using her prominent position in society to help only those she feels are deserving because they align with her own beliefs and values. She refuses to help Eva because she did not agree with Eva’s ‘elaborate fine feelings … that were simply absurd for a girl in her position’. The alliteration of ‘fine feelings’ emphasises Sybil’s snide superiority in that she is prejudiced towards Eva’s sensitivity and considers herself able to feel and experience more complex emotions than a lower class ‘girl’, a further diminutive term that underscores Sybil’s authoritative position and Eva’s own powerlessness in the situation where she is forced to finally seek charitable help after being thrown into a series of increasingly unfortunate positions. Therefore, whether they are consciously or unconsciously aware of their actions, the upper-class characters in the play are shown to manipulate the lower classes by abusing their privileged position; this demonstrates an inherent hierarchical structure in mid 20th-century British society which Priestley challenges and rejects. As a social realist play, the narrative represents a real-life situation that is familiar and known to the audience, so Priestley’s audience would have been aware of people holding the same values as Sybil and Gerald, looking down on lower classes or feeling like they could just exploit them as they pleased. In this way, Priestley asks his audience to question the fundamental beliefs of his society, by showing that they are not based on kindness and empathy, but instead superiority and oppression.

An Inspector Calls: Character Revision

Although Priestley exposes the problems with the upper classes in the play, he also draws equal attention to the plight of the lower classes. This is primarily shown through the character of Eva Smith, who is arguably less of an individual person and more of an everywoman or symbol for the exploited lower class workers: her name ‘Eva’ is a Biblical allusion to Eve, the first woman created by God in the book of Genesis, and her surname ‘Smith’ is the most common surname in Britain. The symbolism of Eva’s name also shifts as her situation deteriorates; being forced out of work several times, she changes her name to ‘Daisy Renton’, the surname perhaps suggesting the idea of a ‘rent girl’ or prostitute. Interestingly, the Inspector describes Eva as a ‘young woman’; the concrete noun ‘woman’ implies his respect for her regardless of her lower-class position. In contrast, the other characters refer to her using belittling or derogatory language, Sybil calls her a ‘wretched girl’, the adjective ‘wretched’ perhaps implying a double meaning of ‘doomed’ but also ‘repulsive’, once again highlighting Sybil’s upper-class snobbery. Arthur Birling also refers to her patronisingly as a ‘lively good-looking girl’ who ultimately ‘only had herself to blame’. Though the compound adjective ‘good-looking’ could be interpreted as a compliment, the audience feels that it is somewhat off-putting and patronising coming from a character such as Mr. Birling, who is in such a position of authority and privilege as a business owner relative to Eva being a mere worker who is replaceable and expendable in his eyes. The concept of ‘blame’ is pushed increasingly away from the lower classes as the play progresses when the Inspector, acting as a mouthpiece for Priestley’s own socialist views, exposes all of the Birling family and Gerald too to be partially culpable, doing so through the prop of the ‘photograph’ which he shows, in turn, to each family member before exposing their encounters with Eva. The fact that nobody sees the photograph at the same time heightens the dramatic tension of the play, and its importance as a plot device is underscored at the end when Gerald points out that ‘There were probably four or five different girls’, ironically failing to recognise that the statement is irrelevant because it still demonstrates that each family member acted exploitatively towards a lower-class person, even if they were different people in the end. Ultimately the Inspector’s fire-and-brimstone speech where he declares that there are ‘millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths’ reinforces to Priestley’s audience the irrelevance of whether Eva is an individual or a symbol, as the point remains that the continual exploitation of lower-class workers by upper and middle classes results in mass suffering and oppression.

However, Priestley does not only criticise the upper and middle classes, as his audience is educated and themselves part of those upper levels in society, he instead demonstrates their potential for change. Both Sheila and Eric certainly affect Eva’s life negatively, but crucially they demonstrate an acceptance of those and show remorse as well as a willingness to be more socially conscious in the future. Sheila outwardly admits her faults to the Inspector: ‘I know I’m to blame – and I’m desperately sorry’, causing the audience to sympathise with her and realise that as she was young, she was perhaps merely copying the behaviour of her mother when showing jealousy and cruelty towards Eva in the department store. Eric arguably is one of the worst characters in terms of his effect on Eva’s life; as an alcoholic who likes to get ‘squiffy’, he is shown to be irresponsible and selfish, to the point where he impregnates Eva and then abandons her. Yet he also shows maturity at the end, stating ‘The fact remains, I did what I did’ – the repetition of ‘did’ in the past tense perhaps emphasises that he is now going to change for the better and become a more considerate man rather than a selfish boy. Overall, the younger generation’s willingness to engage with the Inspector’s message is presented as positive, and they symbolically represent Priestley’s hope that future generations will be more kind and considerate towards one another.

Finally, Priestley uses the tensions between classes as a way of promoting his wider anti-capitalist and pro-socialist political stance. As a socialist, he believes that the typical views of a capitalist society where, as Arthur puts it, ‘a man must look after himself and his own’ are outdated and damaging to the population as a whole, because individuals feel no greater sense of responsibility to the wider community. The reflexive pronoun ‘himself’ and the possessive pronoun ‘his’ also underscore the selfishness that Priestley feels is inherent within capitalism, as in his view it encourages an individualist and anti-collectivist mentality that rewards people for selfish behaviour and discourages them from altruistic or compassionate behaviour. Arthur’s views are directly juxtaposed with the Inspector’s own, particularly towards the end of the play when he becomes more forceful with his opinions. He concludes that ‘we are all members of one body’, using the collective pronoun ‘we’ to reflect his universal perspective of being interconnected with all other individuals in society. The metaphor ‘members of one body’ further reinforces his socialist perspective, as it suggests that each individual is connected to a greater whole – perhaps also referencing Priestley’s own Christian beliefs about harmony within communities and taking care of others, particularly those less fortunate than ourselves. Though in modern British society it is common to be equally exposed to both capitalist and socialist perspectives, when the play was written in 1945 the Labour Party – of whom Priestley himself was a prominent member – had just won over the Conservative Party for the first time in history. Therefore, Priestley’s audience themselves were less accustomed to socialist opinions, and many of them continued to uphold the prewar Edwardian and even Victorian attitudes of class separation, rather than wanting to create a progressive society that encouraged equality between classes. By setting the play in 1912 but writing and performing it in 1945, Priestley also uses this time difference to demonstrate that views such as Mr and Mrs Birling’s are outdated in the modern world, encouraging his audience to distance themselves from a capitalistic mentality and instead embrace a more socialist and equalist approach to life. This double setting also allows Priestley to reinforce the absurdness of some of Arthur’s views – for instance, he declares that the Titanic is ‘absolutely unsinkable’; his assertive and confident tone is entirely undermined for Priestley’s audience by the situational irony that the Titanic sank soon after Mr. Birling made that statement. The effect is to demonstrate Mr. Birling’s idiocy as a whole and to deter the audience from believing his capitalist attitudes, as he is clearly so wrong about his other beliefs.

In summary, Priestley treats the issue of class as integral to the plot of ‘An Inspector Calls’. He criticises the upper and middle classes for their lack of awareness of their privileges and their misinformed judgment of the lower classes in an effort to create a harmonious future society where the problems of class difference and class oppression are greatly minimised, or ideally no longer exist. This is demonstrated within a political framework, in which the Inspector’s socialist views are encouraged in the audience, whereas Mr. Birling’s capitalist views are discouraged. Finally, Sheila and Eric, as younger generation characters, exemplify Priestley’s hope for the future as they show the potential to think for themselves and no longer just copy the entrenched values of their parents.

Thanks for reading! If you found this page useful you can take a look at our full ‘An Inspector Calls’ course , as well as ‘ An Inspector Calls: Story Summary ‘, where we break down Act by Act for easier understanding!

The Theme of Morality in To Kill A Mockingbird

Unseen Poetry Exam Practice – Spring

To Kill A Mockingbird Essay Writing – PEE Breakdown

Emily Dickinson A Level Exam Questions

Poem Analysis: Sonnet 116 by William Shakespeare

An Inspector Calls – Official AQA Exam Questions

The Dolls House by Katherine Mansfield: Summary + Analysis

An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge: Stories of Ourselves:

How to Get Started with Narrative Writing

Robert Frost’s Life and Poetic Career

An Inspector Calls

J. b. priestley, everything you need for every book you read..

Eva Smith Quotes in An Inspector Calls

Birling: It’s a free country, I told them. Eric: It isn’t if you can’t go and work somewhere else.

I can’t help thinking about this girl—destroying herself so horribly—and I’ve been so happy tonight.

Inspector: There are a lot of young women living that sort of existence, Miss Birling, in every city and big town in this country. Sheila: But these girls aren’t cheap labor. They’re people .

Miss Birling has just been made to understand what she did to this girl. She feels responsible. And if she leaves us now, and doesn’t hear any more, then she’ll feel she’s entirely to blame, she’ll be alone with her responsibility.

You’ve had children. You must have known what she was feeling. And you slammed the door in her face.

This girl killed herself—and died a horrible death. But each of you helped to kill her. Remember that. Never forget it. But then I don’t think you ever will.

There are millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, with what we think and do. We don’t live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other.

Whoever that chap was, the fact remains that I did what I did. And Mother did what she did. And the rest of you did what you did to her. It’s still the same rotten story whether it’s been told to a police inspector or to somebody else.

Eva Smith Symbol Timeline in An Inspector Calls

TOP CATEGORIES
AS and A Level
University Degree
International Baccalaureate
Uncategorised
5 Star Essays
Study Tools
Study Guides
Meet the Team
English Literature
J.B. Priestley

An Inspector Calls - Who is responsible for the death of Eva Smith?

Laura Coles 9R

In the play An Inspector Calls the Inspector takes the audience on a journey through the life of Eva Smith leading up to her death and the part that each of the other characters played in it. By the end of the play we know that they were all guilty of mistreating someone, even if it wasn’t the same girl. However, if Eva Smith, Daisy Renton and the girl who came to the Brumley women’s council were all the same girl, and she subsequently died because of their actions, which character was most responsible for her death?

The Inspector speaks first to Mr Birling, a respected and important member of the Brumley community. Just moments before he enters, Birling is talking of having to make your own way and look after yourself. This shows his attitude to towards the world; he doesn’t bother about other people unless they can help him. Birling was associated with Eva Smith because she worked at his factory. He tells us she was a good worker and was about to be promoted just before he ‘ discharged her ’. Mr Birling’s motive for firing Eva Smith was an economic one; Eva was one of the ringleaders of a group of workers who went on strike to get higher wages, twenty five shillings a week instead of twenty two and six. The strike did not last very long and Mr Birling allowed them to return at the normal rates except for four or five ringleaders, Eva Smith was one of them. Birling says it was his ‘ duty to keep labour costs down ’. He doesn't think he did anything wrong in firing Eva Smith because she had ‘ far too much to say ’ and ‘ had to go ’, and he does not feel guilt or responsibility for her death. However, he does accept what he did even if he doesn’t think it makes him responsible.

Later in the play, Birling is very relieved to find out the inspector was not really a police inspector. This reflects his personality from the beginning. He is fine if he looks after himself and doesn’t get into trouble because he wants a knighthood. It shows that he hasn’t changed his opinions and does not really feel any regret for his actions, even if they did help towards the death of an innocent girl.

I do not think Mr Birling is greatly responsible for the death of Eva Smith because was not unjust to her as an individual – she was simply one of the ringleaders. Also, Birling does not do anything illegal although it seems morally wrong to the audience and some of the other characters, he thought – at the time if not now – that what he did was the right course of action to take. However, even if he did not know and thought she could find another job easily, Birling started Eva Smith’s run of bad luck by dismissing her because she wanted better wages and took the risk of asking for them; he began the downward spiral. Mr Birling did to Eva Smith what he tries to do to the inspector; he abused his position as her boss and an important member of the community and selfishly fired her to gain profit.

The inspector’s next target is Sheila Birling. Sheila is the daughter of Mr Birling and recently engaged to Gerald Croft; it is the celebration of the engagement which brings the group together. Sheila is described as a pretty girl in her early twenties, very pleased with life and rather excited. At the start of the play she is portrayed as quite naïve and this is how Mr Birling treats her, telling the inspector ‘ that’s enough of that ’ when he tries to tell Sheila about Eva’s death and trying to settle things ‘ quietly in a corner ’. These comments show Mr Birling as an protective father but they also show that he doesn’t see that his daughter isn’t a little girl any more so he still treats her like one which could shock him when he finds out about Sheila’s involvement in the death.

The audience first works out that Sheila is involved when the inspector asks her to stay but we know the place of her involvement when he mentions Milwards, a shop where Sheila often went. Eva Smith was employed there two months after she left Mr Birling’s factory and the inspector tells us that she enjoyed it very much. Sheila realises her involvement when the inspector tells the group that Eva left Milwards because a customer complained and the Sheila realises that it was her and asks when it was. She asks more questions to the inspector about Eva Smith until she is shown a photograph, then she runs out of the room after recognising the picture. Here Birling shows again that he is protective of Sheila by calling her a ‘ child ’.

This is a preview of the whole essay

When Sheila re-enters a while later she is ready to admit it was her who got Eva Smith fired from her second job. Sheila’s attitude towards her involvement is very different to her father’s and she seems very guilt stricken and full of remorse. Sheila tells the inspector and the other characters in the room of how she got Eva fired because she saw her exchanging a small smile with another shop assistant. It was while Sheila was trying a dress on and she had taken it to be mocking her ‘ as if to say “doesn’t she look awful” ’, making fun of the way she looked in the dress. Sheila also tells us that she knew she looked bad in the dress so her anger at Eva was probably brought on by the fact that Sheila herself didn’t like how she looked in the dress. Earlier, Sheila saw Eva hold the dress up against herself to show something to the other assistant miss Francis and noticed that Eva looked very pretty in the dress and it suited her so Sheila’s true reason was probably mostly envy. Sheila got Eva Smith fired from her job at Milwards by using her power like her father. She had economic power anfd social status in the community and she used this by telling the shop manager she would withdraw her account if he did not dismiss Eva Smith. Throughout Sheila’s story she is very defensive, towards Gerald especially, trying to show him that she is not a bad person because she obviously doesn’t want to ruin their relationship over something that happened a while ago and that she regrets now.

I do think Sheila treated Eva unfairly and she should not have abused her position like that but she is sorry for her actions and shows this throughout the play. Although Sheila did act with envy and this was wrong, she does tell us that she was in a bad mood on the day and I think this means the audience can sympathise with her. We all have bad days and Sheila is just unlucky that her temper caused her more problems than most.

At the end she is one of the few people still feeling guilty instead of relieved when they work out it might not have been the same girl. Sheila really learns the lesson which the inspector is trying to teach; she realises that we are ‘ all members of one body ’ and ‘ responsible for each other ’. She is crying quietly as the inspector leaves and I think that Sheila is possibly the best person as she didn’t do very much but she still pays the heavy price. She feels guilty even after they find out the inspector is not real and that the girl might not have died and shows regret for her actions and compassion for the girl throughout.

The inspector’s next target is Gerald Croft. Gerald is again an important member of the Brumley community; he is the son of a lord and lady who own another large business in the town and he is recently engaged to Sheila Birling. This is a match which his mother even considers below him, as we know from earlier in the play, so when the time comes for Gerald to be questioned, the audience already know he is quite a prominent figure in the town and also well off. We also know he is quite a dominating character, as he seems to scare Sheila by simply looking at her when she tells her story.

Gerald’s role in Eva’s life was when she had changed her name to Daisy Renton. He gives this away as soon as this name is mentioned. Sheila knows from this point because she has already picked up that they will all be involved and she notices immediately Gerald’s expression when he sees the photograph. So, when the inspector leaves them alone, Sheila is ready to start some questioning of her own. We find out in the short time that they are alone that Gerald was with Eva (Daisy) last spring and summer when we already know he did not see much of Sheila. We also see Gerald in denial of his involvement and Sheila not accepting his attempts to ‘ protect ’ her from what he did; perhaps Sheila should be the inspector.

When the inspector returns, we find out more about Gerald’s involvement in Eva’s life and death. However, before this we see him trying to convince the inspector to send Sheila away and then talking to Sheila herself, accusing her of wanting to ‘ see someone else be put through it ’. This shows a feature of Gerald’s personality; that he tries to protect himself first and then he gets to the facts about his relationship with Daisy/Eva.

Gerald first met Eva in the Stalls bar of the palace music hall. This does not seem like a reputable establishment and certainly not a place where a man of Gerald’s position would be expected to be. Nevertheless, he was there and Sheila tells us that the bar is a ‘ favourite haunt of the women of the town ’ which brings the question of why Eva was there. Gerald tells us that when he first saw Eva she was ‘ wedged into a corner ’ by the ‘fat carcass ’ of old Joe Meggarty, a man who was drunk and a notorious womaniser. The other young people know this but Mrs Birling seems shocked, showing the generation gap that is often quite obvious in the play. Gerald went over and rescued the girl from Meggarty after she gave him ‘ a glance that was nothing less than a cry for help ’. He took her to a hotel for a drink and, finding out she was hungry, something to eat. He discovered later that she was going to be turned out of her flat and so insisted she moved into a set of rooms belonging to a friend which had been left in his care while his friend was in Canada. He tells us that he didn’t offer her the rooms because he wanted to keep her as his mistress but that he just felt sorry for her and didn’t ask for anything in return. He says that Eva becoming his mistress was ‘inevitable’ because she was young, pretty, warm-hearted and intensely grateful. (But was this true, perhaps for someone with Gerald’s morals! Would a decent man really have taken advantage of her?) The affair ended in the first week of September when Gerald had to go away on business. It seems, from Gerald’s description, that Eva knew already that it was coming to an end and was ‘ very gallant ’ about it. I think that Gerald didn’t really see what she really felt because he was relieved that it was over and she didn’t make a big fuss about it. Gerald did not know what she planned to do afterwards but the inspector says she went away for a while to think about it and remember and that is why I think it was more important to her than to Gerald.

Throughout Gerald’s story of his involvement with Eva Smith Sheila interrupts and I think this influences the audience because you feel a little sympathy for Gerald being interrogated by both the Inspector and Sheila. However, it also brings up points which may have been missed if Sheila did not mention them. For example: ‘ you were the wonderful fairy prince. You must have adored it. ’ Gerald’s disloyalty to Sheila is an issue when it comes to how responsible he is for Eva’s death. If Gerald had not been disloyal to Sheila then would not have been a relationship with Eva to break off and she would not have been upset by it. However, I do not think Gerald played a very destructive role in the life of Eva Smith as he did make her happy for a short while at least. He gave her a home and money but more importantly, the affection, if not love, which she desperately needed and longed for. He rescued her from Alderman Meggarty and although this didn’t give him the right to sleep with her, he didn’t rescue her to sleep with her and that shows that he isn’t really a bad person. When he broke off his relationship with Eva Smith, Gerald hurt her badly but the language he uses suggests that he hadn’t raised her expectations beforehand so that at least is a good thing.

Gerald seems very upset by the reliving of the story and even says he just realised that she’s dead. After speaking to the inspector Gerald excuses himself and leaves the house to ‘ be alone for a while ’. Gerald’s attitude at the end of the play is quite different from what I would have expected. He seems to take the view of the older Birlings and thinks that because the Inspector is not real and there was no girl in the infirmary (he even volunteers to phone the infirmary) that everything is fine now and can go back to normal. This is a rather different attitude from earlier when he takes back Sheila’s engagement ring without protest and acts rather more maturely in my opinion.

The next subject of investigation by the inspector is Mrs Birling and although Eric Birling came next chronologically in the life of Eva Smith, I will follow the lead of Inspector Goole and discuss Mrs Birling's role in the tragic affair which was Eva Smith.

Unlike with the other characters, we do not get any forewarning of Mrs Birling's role except for knowing that she has one because he inspector and Sheila warn us of this. Mrs Birling's involvement with Eva Smith was as the chairperson of the Brumley Women’s Charity Organization. She met Eva two weeks before her death when she appealed to her organization for help. She admits to being prejudiced towards her case because she firstly called herself Mrs Birling, saying it was the first name which came into her head (we know later that this is because of her involvement with Eric). She also admits that it was due to her influence that the girl was refused help because she ‘ didn’t like her manner ’. Mrs Birling describes the girl who came to the committee as impertinent (a word used a little too much by this family – remember Sheila) and says she seemed to her not to be a good case and so used her influence (another family trait) to have it refused.

Mrs Birling is the only character who refuses throughout the play that she was responsible for the death and always insists that she did what she should have done considering her position.

I think Mrs Birling should accept quite a large proportion of the blame because, as she was the last of the characters to see Eva Smith, she pushed her over the edge as she pushed her out of her life. She acts like she is above it all from the beginning, implying that ‘ girls of that class ’ may have many reasons for committing suicide. Mrs Birling never shows any remorse and only shows any emotion when she is reminded that she killed her own grandchild. She considers herself a person of high morals with the right opinion and because Eva was an unmarried pregnant woman that she had low morals. She showed this disapproval not only by refusing her but by convincing others to refuse her also. Although Eva lied I think it was justified because her situation as an unmarried mother would mean that would be frowned upon by society and therefore unable to get the help which she so desperately needed. Mrs Birling showed Eva Smith none of the charity and sympathy that she needed, instead showing her cold spite and cruelty. Mrs Birling blames the whole affair on the father of the child, which later backfires on her as she finds out just who this father is. I think Mrs Birling's worst trait is her refusal to accept any criticism, no matter how justified and that this will get her further into trouble if she cannot right her ways.

The final target of inquiry by the inspector is Eric Birling. This young and silly son of the Birlings is quite a heavy drinker as his parents find out in the play and it is this trait which gets him involved with Eva Smith.

From the very beginning we get some idea about Eric’s involvement with Eva Smith. Comments like ‘ I remember– ’ (when they talk about women); ‘ here, what do you mean ’ and ‘ well I don’t think it’s very funny ’ (when Gerald and Mr Birling are talking about getting into trouble) show that he is uneasy about talking about women and getting into trouble as we later know because of his relationship and stealing money. When the Inspector arrives, Eric is rather more upset than would be expected by someone who did not know Eva Smith, or a girl like that if he did not know her name at the time.

Eric first met Eva also in the Palace bar, a place which does not sound like a suitable place for the young men of his status but seems to be somewhere they can go and not risk being recognised by their social peers. Eric was ‘ a bit drunk ’ when he met Eva and after he had spoken to her and bought her a few drinks and they had to go, he was ‘ rather far gone ’. Eva had been told to go there by a woman, probably as a suggestion to make money through prostitution and Eric went home with her that night. Eva had not wanted him to go in but as he ‘ insisted ’ and was ‘ in a state when a chap easily turns nasty ’ and ‘ threatened to make a row ’, Eva let him in. Eric was too drunk to remember afterwards and he says ‘ that was the hellish thing ’. He met Eva again a few weeks later by chance in the palace bar and they went to her home again. Eric says he wasn’t in love with her but ‘ she was pretty and a good sport ’; not really the best reasons for sleeping with someone. He found out the next time they met that Eva thought she was going to have a baby and then she was certain. Eva didn’t even suggest that Eric married her because he was too young and didn’t love her, in a way she treated him like a child because that was what he really was inside. He gave Eva money until she wouldn’t take any more. Altogether he gave her fifty pounds, money which he embezzled from his father’s company. When Eva found out about the money she refused to take any more and that is why she came to Mrs Birling's committee.

Eric does accept his responsibility to Eva after she has died and he feels extreme guilt about the situation, even if he does try to reflect the cause of her death on to Mrs Birling (‘ you killed them both – damn you, damn you ’). However, the fact still remains that he ‘ used her for the end of a stupid drunken evening ’ and he had no motive for getting involved except that he wanted a bit of fun. He was irresponsible for sleeping with her and getting her pregnant but he does feel regret afterwards so that is one good point about Eric’s personality. He is also one of the few at the end who still feels bad even if the Inspector wasn’t real and there were different girls but he has good reason to do so. He gave Eva money but it was stolen which almost cancels out that point in his favour. He also didn’t give her any affection or make her happy even for a little while unlike Gerald who had a similar relationship in many ways. Finally, once again Eric was a Birling who used his influence (this time his physical influence) to get what he wants. I think Eric should shoulder quite a large proportion of the blame for Eva’s suicide as he had possibly the largest influence on her life and was one of those who treated her the worst (‘ as if she were an animal, a thing, not a person ’ – Inspector)

In conclusion I agree with the Inspector that the person with the least blame should be Gerald Croft as he gave her happiness for a while and some love and affection. I think that a small amount of blame should be placed upon Mr Birling as he treated Eva badly but it was a few years ago and although he started it all, he does feel some regret throughout the play, though perhaps less at the end when he thinks he is off the hook. I think Sheila should be next as she shows deep regret for her actions and her involvement was just bad luck that she was caught on a day when she was in a bad mood. She felt guilty about the incident even before the Inspector called, showing that she is really a good person, probably just influenced by her parents. I think Mrs Birling should have quite a large amount of blame placed on her as she never shows any regret or guilt for her actions and insists throughout that she did nothing wrong when it is obvious to the audience that she did. Also because she was cruel in a position when she needed to be kind and abused her position. Finally, I think Eric should be found most responsible for the death of Eva Smith because he never did the right thing concerning her and he got her pregnant which is why she went to Mrs Birling’ committee so without Eric, Mrs Birling would not be involved. Really, it did not really matter who was most responsible because the outcome was the same; Eva Smith died and if this wasn’t just a play we would all be very concerned about it. Thank God it is only a play.

An Inspector Calls - Who is responsible for the death of Eva Smith?

Document Details

Word Count 3914
Page Count 4
Subject English

Related Essays

Inspector Calls - Who is most responsible for the death of Eva Smith?

Discus who was responsible for the death of Eva Smith in the play 'An Inspe...

Who is most responsible for the death of Eva Smith in the book 'An Inspecto...

An Inspector Calls - who is to blame for the death of Eva Smith?

International
Schools directory
Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

Eva Smith: "AN INSPECTOR CALLS" - revision GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE

Subject: English

Age range: 14-16

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

31 March 2024

Share through email
Share through twitter
Share through linkedin
Share through facebook
Share through pinterest

Eva Smith/ Daisy Renton

“An Inspector Calls” J.B.Priestley

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

IMAGES

GRADE 9 AN INSPECTOR CALLS GCSE ENGLISH ESSAY, EVA SMITH
BBC One
Character Study Of Eva Smith In An Inspector Calls
GRADE 9 AN INSPECTOR CALLS GCSE ENGLISH ESSAY, EVA SMITH
Top Grade Essay on Eva Smith in An Inspector Calls (thanks George)
An Inspector Calls: Character of Eva Smith

VIDEO

Top Grade Essay on Eva Smith in An Inspector Calls (thanks George)
'An Inspector Calls': Eva Smith Character Analysis (animated)
Top Grade Analysis of Eva Smith in An Inspector Calls
Eva Smith in TEN Quotations
Student Exemplar: Eva Smith Character Analysis (An Inspector Calls)
Eva Smith Explains An Inspector Calls (Mr Salles)

COMMENTS

Eva Smith/Daisy Renton Character Analysis in An Inspector Calls
Eva Smith/Daisy Renton. A character who does not appear onstage in the play, but who is the absent figure around which the action spins. She is referred to as Eva Smith, Daisy Renton, and "Mrs. Birling.". She may be a combination of these young women, or a different person, or a fiction. Whether she is real or not, Eva/Daisy is a stand-in ...
AQA English Revision
An Inspector Calls Essays. ... Eva Smith's name suggests that she represents all of the ordinary humanity, Eva suggesting Eve of Genesis, symbolically the mother of humanity, and Smith being a stereotypical working-class surname. Thus Birling's 'huge' indifference is, symbolically, to the suffering of any human being, particularly those ...
An Inspector Calls
An Inspector Calls is set in 1912 - the year the Titanic sank, an event which itself can be seen as a symbol of humanity's hubris. But this period in time also saw the rise of the suffragette movement which fought for women's right to vote. The clip is from a 2004 film called 'Iron Jawed Angels' starring Hilary Swank which tells the ...
PDF Eva Smith
An Inspector Calls: Character Profile Eva Smith https bit.ly pmt-cc https bit.ly pmt-cc httpsbit.lypmt-edu This work by PMT Education is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. ... British society when An Inspector Calls was first performed in 1945. The start of the welfare state was well under way (liberal reforms in the early 1900s, the Beveridge ...
Eva Smith, a character analysis.
In terms of Eva Smith: 1. She is used to represent woman in general. Her name 'Eva' is very close to 'Eve', the name of the mother of humanity as per Abrahamic traditions. Smith is a very common name in England and in fact is used sometimes to refer to a very ordinary person. She is used to represent women but working class women ...
JAC English Revision
Priestley explores the hierarchy between Arthur Birling, a wealthy businessman, and Eva Smith, a working class girl, to demonstrate the inequality of the class system in 1912 England. During the inspector's interrogation of Arthur Birling, the audience learns that Eva Smith was fired from Arthur Birling because she asked for higher wages.
Characters
Eva Smith/Daisy Renton in An Inspector Calls 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 ...
Eva Smith Character Analysis in An Inspector Calls
Eva Smith is an employee at Birling's factory who leads a group of workers in a strike for higher wages. When their request is denied, she is forced to leave the factory. The Inspector alleges that Eva Smith repeatedly changed her name, and is the same girl that Sheila requested be fired, that Mrs. Birling denied aid, and that Gerald and Eric ...
An Inspector Calls
The An Inspector Calls essay is worth 34 marks in total, because it also includes 4 marks for spelling, punctuation and grammar ... Inspector Goole; Eva Smith; When considering Priestley's play, or any other text, it is critical to understand that characters are deliberate inventions made by a writer for a purpose. These characters frequently ...
GCSE Grade 9 Essay: The significance of Eva Smith in 'An Inspector Calls'
An Inspector Calls essay - Grade 9 GCSE standard. This high-level essay has been well structured, concise and efficient paper. This would achieve full marks - the equivalent of a Grade 9. This resource is a 717-word document, fitting the 45mins time frame for a GCSE exam. Targeted at the AQA specification but will be useful to all GCSE ...
How Guilt is Presented in "An Inspector Calls"
In "An Inspector Calls," guilt is portrayed as a powerful force that gradually unravels the façades of seemingly respectable characters. The unexpected visit of Inspector Goole disrupts the celebratory engagement dinner of the Birlings, leading to revelations about their past actions. As the Inspector probes into the death of Eva Smith, each ...
An Inspector Calls
Grade 9 essay on Eva Smith´s significance in An Inspector Calls, in the form of Paper 2 Section A (Modern Drama) of AQA GCSE English Literature. Although the essay is written for the AQA spec, useful for any GCSE course. I achieved a Grade 9 overall and full marks in Paper 2. Hope you find the essay helpful and please leave a review below!
An Inspector Calls
This is an example of a high grade A* / L9 essay for 'An Inspector Calls'. It was completed by myself, not in timed conditions, to set an example for high achieving students, so it is beyond the requirement of a high grade for GCSE. However, students are encouraged to read it and deconstruct it to get ideas for their own essays and ...
Eva Smith Symbol in An Inspector Calls
The symbol of Eva Smith is the character that the Inspector constructs by explaining that she has changed her name multiple times, was injured by each of the Birlings in turn, and consequently commits suicide. In fact, the Inspector seems to have created her as an amalgam of several women, each of them separately harmed by the different ...
Eva Smith In An Inspector Calls
An Inspector Calls Eva Smith Death Essay. In the play "An Inspector Calls", the author JB. Priestly focuses a lot on the topic of responsibility in the Birling family which is really important and makes up most of the play. The story is all about the death of Eva Smith, and it progresses to show everyone's involvement in her death.
Eva Smith In An Inspector Calls
1426 Words. 6 Pages. Open Document. Eva Smith is a subject of common debate amongst the readers of the play 'An Inspector Calls'. Priestley is a strong socialist and his views are expressed by the portrayal of the character of the inspector as well as Eva Smith. The entire story revolves around Eva which makes her the protagonist in the play.
How Does Priestley Present Eva Smith In An Inspector Calls
Inspector calls was based around a family that got a visit from a visit regarding the death of a woman named Eva smith. The inspector came to visit a well respected family also known the Birling family, to ask questions whether they knew this young women. when this play was set in 1912 the society was not equal, people from higher class and ...
Eva Smith
Inspector Calls Essay plan. 31 terms. HeLlo13254_me. Preview. Hume's Critique of Teleological Argument. 11 terms. Sabina_Kinzambi. Preview. Visual Perception . 14 terms. ... Priestley portrays the character of Eva Smith is to be a representation of the lives of working-class women in 1912. Intro 2. He does this to how the oppression and the ...
Social Class Essay: An Inspector Calls
The Inspector is used as a figure of morality; he is there to make the family realise that they have an easy life resting upon the hard and difficult work of the lower class. As JB Priestley was a socialist and a founder of the Socialist Commonwealth Party, he wanted to see the collapse of the class system. The Inspector tries to make the other ...
An Inspector Calls: Eva Smith Essay Plan Flashcards
In the didactic play, an Inspector Calls, Eva Smith is one of the key characters whose suicide the play revolves around. Eva Smith is presented as an innocent, diligent working class who encounters an undesirable fate caused by the Birlings and Gerald and is used as a construct by Priestley to represent the impact of capitalism on the wider working class.
An Inspector Calls
In the play An Inspector Calls the Inspector takes the audience on a journey through the life of Eva Smith leading up to her death and the part that each of the other characters played in it. By the end of the play we know that they were all guilty of mistreating someone, even if it wasn't the same girl. However, if Eva Smith, Daisy Renton and the girl who came to the Brumley women's ...
Social Responsibility Essay: An Inspector Calls
The first way Priestley explores the theme of social responsibility is by using the characters as vessels, and the Inspector as a 'mouthpiece' of his socialist views, to transport his moral message to the audience and readers. Priestley introduces the Inspector as someone who "creates an impression of solidarity, massiveness and ...
Eva Smith: "AN INSPECTOR CALLS"
Eva Smith: "AN INSPECTOR CALLS" - revision GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE | Teaching Resources. Eva Smith: "AN INSPECTOR CALLS" - revision GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE. Subject: English. Age range: 14-16. Resource type: Assessment and revision. File previews. docx, 21.07 KB. Eva Smith/ Daisy Renton. "An Inspector Calls" J.B.Priestley.
Characters Eva Smith/Daisy Renton in An Inspector Calls
Eva Smith/Daisy Renton in An Inspector Calls 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 ...

An Inspector Calls Essays

B) How does Priestley explore responsibility in An Inspector Calls ?

C) How does Priestley explore responsibility in An Inspector Calls ?

Mr Hanson's English

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

[email protected]

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

Insert/edit link

Exemplar Essay: Eva Smith

How Guilt is Presented in "An Inspector Calls"

Table of contents

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on An Inspector Calls

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

An Inspector Calls – Full Mark Essay L9 / A* grade

How does Priestley explore the issue of class in An Inspector Calls?

Related Posts

The Theme of Morality in To Kill A Mockingbird

Unseen Poetry Exam Practice – Spring

To Kill A Mockingbird Essay Writing – PEE Breakdown

Emily Dickinson A Level Exam Questions

Poem Analysis: Sonnet 116 by William Shakespeare

An Inspector Calls – Official AQA Exam Questions

The Dolls House by Katherine Mansfield: Summary + Analysis

An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge: Stories of Ourselves:

How to Get Started with Narrative Writing

Robert Frost’s Life and Poetic Career

An Inspector Calls

Eva Smith Quotes in An Inspector Calls

Eva Smith Symbol Timeline in An Inspector Calls

An Inspector Calls - Who is responsible for the death of Eva Smith?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Inspector Calls - Who is most responsible for the death of Eva Smith?

Discus who was responsible for the death of Eva Smith in the play 'An Inspe...

Who is most responsible for the death of Eva Smith in the book 'An Inspecto...

An Inspector Calls - who is to blame for the death of Eva Smith?

Eva Smith: "AN INSPECTOR CALLS" - revision GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS