A Y11 student analyses Eric extremely well.

What do you think is the importance of Eric and how does Priestley present him?

In the Edwardian era, England was steeped in hypocrisy and superficiality. Your step on the social hierarchy ladder was determined by your wealth and material possessions as opposed to your levels of kindness and moral reasoning.

We first see Eric’s character sitting at the edges of the tables whereas his Mother and Father are at opposite ends of the head of the table as if they were in thrones. This may make Eric feel like he can never become as superior as his Father and may also be a metaphor, for after the night’s events, Eric never becoming like his Father.

Eric’s character is quite complex as we see various sides of him throughout the play during various scenes.

When his Father has just been told about his importance in the life of Eva/Daisy, Birling justifies his own actions and states that there is nothing that could be done. Eric disagrees with him as he states “He could. He could have kept her on.” The word ‘kept’ here sounding very permanent to show us how there would be no mention of anyone getting sacked within his own business. Which would seem a very rebellious thing to say, especially coming from a middle class family, would be seen to be a very outlandish thing to do and very out of place for a middle class child. Although this shows us how Eric already has certain viewpoints that would agree with the Inspector and Eva as Gerald has also just heard these accusations but is still siding with Mr Birling. This shows how Eric must have some sort of moral conscience for the lesser classes before this event occurred.

I think at this point, we are supposed to feel a sense of sympathy towards Eric as he, during the play’s plot, is perceived to have a secret of his own, but he is at least looking as if he is feeling guilty with himself and is representing Eva and the working class when he states that his Father should have kept Eva within his business.

Eric questions his Father “was this recently?” which makes senses as he may be thinking that this girl may be the same one which he impregnated. At least he is seen to then be asking about the girl that we later find out to in fact be Eva.

When Eric asks if her firing from the business was the cause of her suicide, Birling tells Eric to “calm down and to not get excited”. This shows us again his dismissive nature even though he is being directly confronted of his actions. The word ‘excited’ here is perceived to be to do with a situation that was humorous as opposed to the actual situation: one of fatal consequences. This shows to us again of how    Birling doesn’t relate any of his doings to accumulate to the fatal demise of Eva. It also shows us of how dismissive he is of Eric’s question which was very acceptable and relevant at this stage of the play. As a bonded Father and Son may go into another room to discuss this, there is no more mention of Eric’s question from Birling and it seems like Eric’s enquiry has been dropped as quickly as Eva was dropped from the company in September of 1910.

I perceive JB, here, to be foreshadowing the later events to do with Eric and his Father. There are definite signs of tension between the two and it is obvious that they are not of a close-knit bond in which the lesser classes may depict the middle class families to be. There is always an ‘obligatory’ scene that tells us the secret of a character and about their murky past and it seems like Eric is already disgusted by one member of his family’s wrong doings.

This builds up much tension for the audience as we observe one after another, how the characters are being exposed to their murky past behaviour. We perceive how all members of the family have all done deeds they are ashamed of and each scene leaves the audience waiting to see what will be uncovered next. And as the play is perceived through three acts, the tension is built up throughout the play towards the final scene when all secrets have been revealed. This is metaphorical for how the middle class families are believed to be superior when they share all the same traits as the lower classes and there is no difference between the morals of the middle class and others.

During Eric’s confession part in the play, we see him try to make an attempt to make things okay for Eva, financially. When talking about the money he stole to give to Eva, he states: “until she refused to take any more.” This shows us how Eric has been financially stabilising Eva and has done all in his power to help make sure she was okay and has the necessities she needed.

I perceive JB to have shown this side of Eric to make us feel as if he is being responsible for his actions, as opposed to his Father who is refusing to mark his firing of any significance to the demise of Eva. We could say that Eric is being more mature than his Father and that his Father is very cowardly at the side of Eric, which could be seen as dramatic irony as his Father is always seated at the head of the table and is seen as ‘the head’.

Through Eric’s character, it is obvious that JB has the intention of changing the society in which they currently reside. He is in the position to manipulate Eric’s character to be one which is perceived to have empathy for the working class and Eva especially.

I also think that JB Priestley wants us to depict that it is Eric and Sheila’s generation that change the society as there is a political metaphor that the conservative government had been ruling during the First World War and continued for the Second World War which is depicting the thousands of deaths of Eva Smiths and John Smiths. When there is a new socialist labour party, this is seen as the era when the younger ones; such as Sheila and Eric are the leaders as far as businesses go etc, and so are in charge of helping there to be a better society for all the Eva Smiths and John Smiths out there.