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.

An Inspector Calls - Revision

Remember that An Inspector Calls is Section A of the Literature: Exploring Modern Texts exam. 

You have 45 minutes to answer the question and there will be a choice of two questions, there are a total of 30 marks.

Previous exams have tended to have a question on character and one on theme or stage directions.  However, it is unwise to assume or question-spot.

The assessment objectives tested for An Inspector Calls are FLITS

Form

• An Inspector Calls is a play and therefore you must show your examiner an understanding of this.  ALWAYS refer to the audience's reaction to characters and action.
• Refer to stage directions at some point in your essay; the stage directions at the commencement of Act 1 are very rich for characterisation and setting.  Also, the different ways the stage directions are used throughout the play to show the way the characters are meant to act e.g Inspector (cutting in massively) - for an A/A* you should aim to include and analyse some stage directions as well as dialogue.
• Stage directions are for the actors and director. 
• The form is also a detective play and a thriller. 
• The play appears to have a detective (the Inspector) and the 1940s audience would be used to detective films and expecting certain things of this genre of play: that the Inspector would sum everything up and point to the killer.  The questions at the end of Act 3 subvert this genre and make it interesting.  The audience wouldn't have been expecting any questions at the end of the play.
• It also appears to be a traditional whodunnit, but in this play everyone dunnit (sorry). This is also a change from generic expectations. You could link this to a question about 'responsibility' and show that this demonstrates the theme of responsibility as so many people are responsible for the death.

Language

• Remember language involves analysing the effect of certain words and language techniques for A/A*
• Priestley uses dramatic irony (where the audience knows more than the character) both for humour and to undermine Mr Birling's credibility ('the Titanic ... unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable' and 'I say there isn't a chance of a war').  This may be metaphorical for his complacency in the face of the storm gathering over his family: he doesn't see the Titanic sinking nor WW1 and WW2, neither does he foresee his family's ruin that very night.
• Look at the parallels and juxtapositions between what Birling says and what the Inspector says (Birling: 'if you don't come down sharply on some of these people, they'd soon be asking for the earth!' ....  Inspector 'They might. But after all it's better to ask for the earth than to take it')
• Metaphor: 'Eva Smiths and John Smiths' - Smith is the most common surname in English and represents workers as 'smiths' were originally industrial workers (think blacksmiths, goldsmiths etc).  Additionallly, Eva may link to Eve - the first woman, or all women. John was the most popular English name for men.  Therefore, Eva Smith is metaphorical for all workers.

Please remember that if you get a character question you MUST look at the language in the stage directions to Act 1 describing that character.  Please learn that 'portentous' means 'pompous' or 'arrogant'.  Do not analyse words you do not understand.

Ideas / Intentions

• Priestley was a socialist and his ideas / intentions are based around making the audience question social responsibility.
• He juxtaposes an upper middle class family ('dessert plates ... champagne glasses ... decanter of port, cigar boxes and cigarettes') with the absolute poverty of the working class ('these young women counting their pennies in their dingy little back bedrooms')
• There is an interpretation that the Inspector presents Priestley's viewpoint: 'We are members of one body.  We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish'.
• He is NOT entirely hostile to the upper-middle class.  There is more sympathy for Sheila and Eric who do learn the Inspector's lessons than Mr & Mrs Birling and Gerald, who do not.

Themes

This is an excellent summary of the themes in the play - click here

• Social and personal responsibility - this is a key theme. (Inspector: 'Public men, Mr. Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges',  Mrs Birling: 'Go and look for the father of the child. It's his responsibility.' Sheila: 'And I know I'm to blame - and I'm desperately sorry - but I can't believe - I won't believe - it's simply my fault in the end - she committed suicide'). The click here for the BBC Bitesize on reponsibility
• Social class - get the class names right: Eva/Daisy is working class; the Birlings are middle class and the Crofts are aristocrats or upper class. Click here for some relevant information on Bitesize
• Sex discrimination - Eva/Daisy has less power because she is a woman. When she loses her job for striking she has very little choice but to have sexual relationships with Gerald and Eric for money. Ironically, Mrs Birling is horrified by this. There are suggestions throughout the play of a hypocrisy in this society and that many rich, married men such as the Alderman are visiting the playhouse to meet prostitutes.
• Age / The Generation Gap - Eric and Sheila are dismissed for being young and impressionable by their parents BUT tend to be more insightful than their parents too.
• The Supernatural - one interpretation is that the Inspector is a supernatural being; a ghost? - compare 'ghoul' and 'Goole' or some sort of angelic figure as he speaks in religious imagery 'And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish'. Also, consider what the Inspector is there to inspect: a crime or the families' consciences?
• Time - this play was performed in 1946 and set in 1912. This gives Priestley the opportunity to use dramatic irony as the audience would know exactly what had just happened (WW2). However, is there an interpretation that the reason the final phoncall from the informary comes through is because the family have not learnt their lesson?
• Truth and lies - the family's 'happiness' is built on lies - Gerald has been having an affair with Eva whilst courting Sheila.  Eric has been stealing and lying.  However, how far do the family also lie to themselves and not know their own faults?

Structure

• The play is in three acts and at the end of each act is a denouement where the audience find out a juicy piece of information just before the curtain falls (in Act 1 it is Sheila finding out about Gerald's affair; in Act 2 it is the realisation that Eric is the father of the baby; in Act 3 it is that a girl has died at the infirmary and an inspector is on the way...).  This builds tension and makes the audience thrilled to see more.
• The Inspector inspects each character separately.  This allows the audience to see the character's involvement in Eva/Daisy's story unfold but also allows the 'false' ending in Act 3 where it appears to Gerald ('But how do you know it's the same girl?' ... 'How do you know it's the same photograph?').
• The effect of the false ending is to unsettle the audience: we feel frustrated that the family have 'got away with it' and relieved that a girl hasn't died. Then, at the end when the final telephone call comes in we are more shocked.  Is this Priestley trying to teach the audience about collective responsibility and caring for others?
• The Inspector arrives at exactly the point when Mr Birling has just said we are not responsible for each other: 'a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own [we hear the sharp ring of a doorbell]' - is this because Inspector Goole is truly supernatural?