Mr Birling then goes onto an egotistical speech. This speech impresses upon the audience his views on society, and exposes him as bit of an idiot. He makes several mistakes when predicting the future: not only does he mock the possibility of war (which was to begin just two years later), but he also declares the Titanic, which was to sink on its first voyage, as “unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable” and that there is economic “prosperity to come” – this was to be followed by the resource-eating war and the Great Depression. This is an example of dramatic irony since the audience (in 1946) would be well aware of the actual events. This display early on makes the audience aware of his character. Mr Birling also tries to impress Gerald, using his power over his family and saying “there’s a very good chance of knighthood” and the complacent and dismissive way he talks about it further is intended to impress “just a knighthood, of course”. Mr Birling obviously feels inferior to Gerald because of lower social class, something which is important to him and this is why he comes across rather ridiculous with his views on the Titanic, War and Economy which all prove to be wrong.
Mr Birling is described by Priestley as “heavy-looking, rather portentous man in his middle fifties”. Very early on we are made aware of his character and self-absorption. He seems to care less and less about his family and more about business which he sees as key. The marriage between his daughter and Gerald is mostly a business move. This is evident in his speech at the beginning, in which he declares that “we employers at last are coming together to see that our interests are properly protected”. This suggests that Arthur only cares about himself and he is an embarrassment to his wife. As he is so proud of, he is a “self-made, hard headed business man” and so comes under nouveau riche – literally new money. He, unlike his wife was not born into money and so is from a different social class to her. He is much less concerned with propriety, social conventions and etiquette than Mrs Birling who seems to find her husband an embarrassment. At dinner he attempts to be aristocratic, making long speeches but rather fails by making blunders and showing other etiquette inadequacies. Because of his lower class he is dominated by his cool, dismissive wife and appears vulnerable as he jumps to his own defense but makes up for this by loudly boasting to Gerald of his “knighthood” and impressing his capitalistic views. He says “a man has to mind his own business, look after himself” and “-community and all that nonsense”. This further shows his disregard for others and is not what a middle-class man should do over dinner. Overall Mr Birling represents everything Priestley hated about capitalism and business men. He tries his best to make Mr Birling appear repulsive and vulgar.
Mrs Birling is described in the play as “about fifty, a rather cold woman and her husband's social superior”. She is the mother of Eric and Sheila and although they are both into their twenties, she sees them as children and often patronises them. She is astutely aware of the significance of social class, and the varying ranks of the characters; her reprimand of Arthur for his praise of the cook shows how desperate she is to follow the rules of polite behaviour, especially in front of Gerald. Mrs Birling is part of the Brumley Women’s Charity but we get the feeling her desire is not to be charitable but more to be seen as being charitable. Mrs Birling was born into wealth and so is of old money which means she is socially superior to her husband. The effectively means she is constantly undermining him making him feel less confident and more vulnerable. She is very happy about the engagement of her daughter because it will raise the social status of her family. In her bubble of contentment, Mrs. Birling fails to notice some of the major dysfunctions in her family, such as Eric’s drinking problem. As the plot moves on she tries to deny more things she does not want to believe, including the affair Gerald has with Daisy and the thought that Eva would turn down money if she thought Eric had stolen, clearly showing that she lacks understanding of the working-class. As well as patronising them, Mrs Birling tries to protect her children from the realities of the world, for example when Gerald is being questioned about his visit to the “haunt of women of the town” – meaning prostitutes – she declares that “it would be much better if Sheila didn’t listen to this story at all”. In fact it is Mrs Birling who turns the knife at the end, shifting the blame onto her own son albeit unintentionally.
Sheila is “a pretty girl in her early twenties, very pleased with life and rather excited” with her engagement to Gerald. However her suspicious attitude towards Gerald’s absence in the summer, during which time she suspects he might have been having an affair shows she is not naïve. She uses imagery, asking her mother not to “build up a wall between us and that girl”. However her mother and father still treat her as a child even though she alone seems to realise the tactic that the Inspector is using – “he’s giving us the rope – so that we’ll hang ourselves”. Although her happiness and faith in her family is destroyed by the Inspector, she acts maturely and is the only one apart from Eric that accepts full responsibility for her part with Eva. This is in strong contrast to her parents and Gerald and maybe reflective of the generation and class difference.
Eric, the younger child of the family is described as “not quite at ease, half-shy, half-assertive”. We get the feeling he does not have an easy relationship with his father, whom Eric describes as “not the kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble”. Like Sheila his parents still treat him as a child, which is not helped by his drinking problem, they see him as full of deceitful lies. At the beginning, his drinking problem and attitude portray him as a rather weak man, with similar qualities and views to his father. Eric is upset with Sheila as she told their parents of his drinking problem – calling her a “little sneak” – which suggests that he, like his parents, prefer to sweep unpleasant things under the carpet. Amazingly even his parents admonish Sheila for telling the truth, showing that they consider loyalty more important than honesty. However by the end he no longer sides with his parents, he sides with Sheila and accepts responsibility for getting Eva pregnant. He is used to being bullied by Arthur and it is only when he becomes ashamed of his father’s actions that he begins to stand up to him – obviously does not agree with his father’s treatment of Eva Smith showing sympathy for her, calling it “tough luck” and “a dam’ shame” - realising that Arthur isn’t as high and mighty as he likes to portray himself. Out of all the characters in the play, Eric goes through the biggest change.
Gerald is the “young man about town, rather too manly to be a dandy”. Being the son of Lord and Lady Croft, business rivals to Mr. Birling, he is an aristocrat. The Birlings look up to Gerald and crave his social status. Gerald is marrying beneath is social status as a possible rebellion to his parents. This mismatching was frowned upon in society rather like mixed couples today are. And yet Gerald had an affair with a poor woman although he denies having anything to do with Eva at first. Eventually he is coaxed into revealing his affair and accepting his responsibility by the Inspector. Perhaps surprisingly, though, the Inspector almost spares Gerald of blame for the girl’s death, saying that “Croft…at least had some affection for her and made her happy for a time” (possibly because of Priestley’s own large history of affairs) He still maintains his love for Sheila though and Sheila indicates a possible acceptance for Gerald’s mistake “In fact, in some odd way, I rather respect you more than I have ever done before”. However the marriage breaks up when Gerald reverts back to his old ways at the end, He was so affected by the news of her death that he had to leave the room to be alone for a period of time. He also genuinely regrets his treatment of Eva/Daisy (speaking “in low, troubled tones”). However when the Inspector is revealed as a fake and a girl has not really died, he quickly reverts back to his old ways saying “Everything’s all right now” and is quite relieved that he can sweep it all back under the carpet.
Each character that Priestley has created represents something in society. Mr Birling is of new money while Mrs Birling is of old money; however they are both middle-class snobs with capitalistic views. They disapprove of change, and neither accepts any responsibility. On the other side are Eric and Sheila who see their mistakes and are truly sorry. They accept responsibility and this perhaps reflects the generation gap between parents and children. The newer generation brings change but as Mr Birling admits “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. Gerald is somewhat in the middle, accepting responsibility after a while but reverts back to his old aristocratic ways of beforehand the minute it is revealed as “a joke”. By making the Birlings appear vulgar and slightly larger than life he has created an unfavourable stereotype for the upper and middle-class.
The Inspector is very much a character with socialist views which he airs on the Birling family. Succeeding with the more impressionable younger characters, Sheila and Eric – Priestley hopes that their change for the good will inspire the post-war generation to do the same. Priestley presents the Inspector as a man of great moral integrity so that the audience can identify with him and respect his views (and so, indirectly, those of Priestley himself – socialism). Priestley also portrays Eva Smith in such a way that the audience will feel sympathy for her (being “very pretty” always helps) and a corresponding hostility towards the capitalist and snobbish Birlings. Inspector Goole is commanding and authoritative and dominates all the other characters even when Mr and Mrs Birling try to intimidate him (“I don’t think we can help you much” and about the Chief Constable “perhaps I ought to warn you, he is an old friend of mine. . .”) He remains calm and collected, speaking “coolly” with the intention of shocking the characters into realisation. He uses an unusual way of questioning, following “one line of enquiry at a time” and getting them to talk their own way into trouble “he’s giving us the rope – so that we’ll hang ourselves”. In his final address to the Birlings and Gerald, he gives a moralistic speech on how he sees what has occurred as wrong. He shows his clearly socialistic views, saying “we don’t live alone [clearly contradicting Mr Birling’s views] we are members of one body. We are responsible for each other”. His parting words, that “if men will not learn that lesson [that they are responsible for each other], then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish” have a slightly prophetic tone to them, further showing evidence of his magical and mysterious qualities. In this passage, Goole resembles a messenger from God clearly referring to the start of World War I two years after the play's setting and then World War II. A major question that is constantly asked is “Who is Inspector Goole?” since it is established that he is not a member of the Police, and has foreknowledge of the girls death. Although she has not died yet, it is revealed in a twist at the end of the play that she dies after the inspector left. However the identity of the Inspector is really irrelevant, since the Inspector is simply a mouthpiece for Priestley, who is trying to get the audience to look at society and responsibility.
The Inspector makes the very socialist point that “One Eva Smith has gone – but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths . . . still left with us” The fact that the dead girl has many names creates the effect that it is not just one person who is affected by the irresponsible upper class but many different people, possibly the whole of the working class and is underlined by the use of the surname “smith” which is very common in Britain. All the characters have done something weak or wicked which some accept and others fail to. But the play is overall showing Priestley’s views on society and airing his vast dislike of the snobbery in the upper and middle classes.
