Trace the development of Sheila throughout the play, and discuss her function as a character in relation to shaping the audience's response

Authors Avatar

Joe Kingham

Trace the development of Sheila throughout the play, and discuss her function as a character in relation to shaping the audience’s response

        Within this essay I intend to explore the possibility that Sheila transmogrifies from a very material, individualist being in a philosophical sense, to having a much more socialist perspective, including her thoughts on social responsibility, and her own family’s role in this new attitude. In my opinion,  Sheila’s function within this play is to stimulate free thinking amongst the younger members of the audience, and encourage them to re-think their ideals, morals and belief, aiming mainly to turn the audience towards socialism.

        When we first meet Shelia in the first act, she comes across to the audience as immature, spoilt and very much materialistic – a typical upper-class adolescent female. She demonstrates her immaturity in the manner with which she addresses her parents, calling them: ‘mummy,’ and, ‘daddy,’ in the same fashion with which a toddler might address its mother and father. This infantile attitude is due to her lack of life experience, and the fact remains that she has been mollycoddled throughout her childhood, slowing down her progression  into adulthood.

        Shelia acts like a child, thus her parents threat her as they would a child. Despite being intelligent, as she shows when she half-serious, half-playfully told Gerald (her fiancé) how last summer he: ‘never came near me, and I wondered what happened to you.’ Her subtlety here is notable, she hints that she suspects he has been playing away from home, but is cunning and wily enough to disguise her conjectures.

        At this particular point in the play, Sheila takes a very individualist stance, on top of being mercilessly materialistic. For example, when she receives her engagement ring, which is of course extravagantly bejewelled, and most likely terribly expensive, she announces to the room: ‘Now I really feel engaged.’ This shows us that she isn’t really in love, in the most enduring sense of the word, as she requires physical confirmation of love, rather than feeling the feelings that confirm real, true love.

        However, it is difficult to blame Sheila for her mental misdevelopment. Throughout her life, she had been cosseted by her parents, spoiled, as it were. As young children we are extremely impressionable  - our parents and siblings in particular are tremendously influential in our upbringing, as they are with us usually from our beginning to their end. Mr Birling is a staunch capitalist, who cares for little more than himself and his property (which, in his eyes, includes his family). The dinner was initially intended as a celebration of the joining in holy matrimony of Gerald and Sheila, but when Mr Birling stands up to say his piece, he brings into it business and profit, or as he puts it: ‘lower costs and higher prices.’ For a man to bring this up at his own daughter’s engagement party, individualism is inherent.

Join now!

        When the inspector tells Mr Birling of his part in the death of an innocent woman, he refuses to accept any moral responsibility whatsoever, even going so far as to say: ‘I can’t accept any responsibility.’ This type of attitude typifies a man who cares about nothing save profit margins.. He is neither empathetic nor sympathetic, simply cold & uncaring. At this point in time, Sheila is the same.

        However, when the inspector exposed Mr Birling’s part in the death, Sheila had a very different reaction to that of her parents, revealing a whole different Sheila to the audience, and ...

This is a preview of the whole essay