In this essay I will be discussing whom was/were responsible for the suicide of Daisy Renton/ Eva smith in JB Priestly's "An Inspector Calls". I will discuss each character in turn and their involvement if any in the death of Eva Smith. Although each member of the Birling family and Gerald Croft have had contact with Eva Smith/Daisy Renton during the previous two years, none of them is aware of the others involvement in the tragedy until the day of the inspector's visit. He makes them aware of the part they have played in her tragic end.The characters each react differently to the news and to the degree of responsibility, which they should bear.
The first person to have contact with Eva was Arthur Birling. Mr Birling and the rest of his family are quite rich and would be part of the upper class. The first indication you get of this (apart from the description of the house at the beginning of the play) is the phrase from Mr Birling "tell cook from me", back in 1912 and indeed in modern times anyone who employed a cook would be quite "well off" and of a high social standing.Mr Birling is quite an arrogant and pompous man, probably because of his wealth and social standing.
The phrase spoken by Birling in act 1 "I'm talking as a hard headed businessman" is a good indication of this arrogance. Another phrase, which is spoken by Birling also in Act 1 "working together for lower costs and higher prices", tells us that Birling cares more about profits than people, the phrase is also another indication of Birling's arrogance. Birling is quite social and seems to be the centre of conversation among his family and Gerald.He maintains a relaxed disposition and there is no indication of a bad temper when in this atmosphere. However you get the idea from phrases like "we employers are coming together to see that our interests are properly protected" and "just because these miners came out on strike" that Birling would probably "lose his rag" when it came to confrontations with strike leaders, which continuing on to the subject of Eva Smith was one. Birling would of viewed Eva (when she was on strike) as an annoying thorn in his side, lowering profits and hindering the progress of his and the country's economic interests.
The first phrase in act 1 where you first get an idea of Birlings feelings towards Eva is where he is talking to the inspector and exclaims, "Obviously it has nothing to do with the wretched girl's suicide". I believe Mr Birling would not have said this about Eva if she did not lead the strike for higher wages because of the phrase "Eva Smith had been working in one of our machine shops for over a year, a good worker too". The main reason why the inspector believes that Birling is partly responsible is because he fired Eva for leading the strike.Eric argues with his father "you could of kept her on instead of throwing her out" which Birling then replies " if you don't come down sharply on this people, they'll be asking for the earth". The inspector then enters the argument and speaks a phrase, which ultimately sums up what Birling did to Eva, " it's better to ask for the earth than take it". This phrase clearly angers Birling as he then stares at the inspector and tells him that the chief constable is a good friend of his; basically meaning Birling could get the inspector fired if he carries on with the interrogation.
The way Birling acted conveys to us that he must have felt some guilt over firing Eva only after the inspector and Eric argued against him. Although Arthur Birling set Eva's tragedy in motion I don't think he was to blame at all for her death because he was just behaving as any other manufacturer at that time would have done. However, I did dislike his attitude when he found out about her death. He was too concerned about keeping the story quiet to protect his position in society and his knighthood.Arthur Birling's attitude that "a man has to mind his own business and look after himself" was precisely what JB Priestly was fighting against when he wrote this play. He believed that we should all help each other and take responsibility for our actions.
After being sacked from Birling's Eva was out of work for two months but then she got a job as a sales assistant in a clothes shop. It was here where Sheila's involvement took place. She had been a valued customer at Milwards and used this to her advantage to get Eva dismissed. Sheila had complained about Eva for laughing at her when she tried on a dress.
What had perhaps annoyed her even more was that Eva looked better in the dress than she did. Eva was very pretty and Sheila was jealous of her and because of this she "couldn't be sorry for her". We get a small taste of Shelia's jealous personality right at the beginning of the play where she refers back to "last summer" and she mentions to Gerald half-seriously "except for all last summer, when you never came near me, and I wondered what had happened to you". In this phrase she is obviously insinuating that Gerald was with another woman (which later on you find is Eva).Sheila had no proof that he was with another woman which shows she is quite possessive over Gerald. Even though you see a slightly jealous and possessive side to Sheila when in the family atmosphere, you never get any hints at all before her interrogation of any malice in her personality.
In fact she conveys a quite caring disposition in the build-up to her interrogation using phrases like "it's a rotten shame" and "I can't help thinking about that poor girl" when she was informed of the death of a lady (at this point, not knowing it was Eva).However when you later find out that Sheila got Eva fired for something very little than a slightly Malicious Sheila is conveyed to the reader, a spoilt and jealous rich girl is also conveyed. Sheila does however slightly redeem herself as being a caring and warm person when she admits undeniable guilt for getting her fired. Sheila breaks down after telling everyone the story of why Eva got fired and guiltily admits " How could I know what would happen afterwards? " Sheila also admits to being jealous of Eva, which she also feels guilty about.I do believe Sheila did something very wrong for getting Eva fired over something so tedious. However Sheila did say that "she looked as though she could of looked after herself" and "if she had been some miserable plain little creature, I don't suppose I would of done it" which takes some blame off Sheila, but the fact is Eva needed that job and Sheila took it away from her, which probably gave Eva one of several reasons to kill herself.
However Sheila never knew Eva would be affected by the sacking as much as it did.Taking everything into account with Eva's firing, Gerald would not have met Eva because Eva was looking for another job when they met; and Eva would have never had to ask Mrs Birling for help as she would have had enough money from Milwards. So in fact when you look at it like that, Sheila caused a chain reaction of events that could of led to Eva's death. Gerald Croft becomes involved with the girl after Eva's second sacking but she has now changed her name to Daisy Renton in an attempt to start a new life. She is destitute and considers prostitution.
We shouldn't condemn her for this because she had no parents and there was no welfare state in those days for her to turn to, so it was probably a choice between starvation and prostitution. Gerald first met Daisy in a bar at the theatre. He saw Alderman Meggarty harassing her and went to her rescue. He took her for a drink and a meal because he pitied her and he learnt she was desperate and so let her use his friend's room.
She then became his mistress and they were together for the whole summer of 1911. He finished with her and cast her aside because of his relationship with Sheila Birling.Gerald, throughout the play comes across in a way as a young Mr Birling. He constantly agrees with Mr Birling about The way business should be run, he also backed Birling up during his interrogation and agrees with Birlings actions towards Eva. I think Gerald's character is quite a vague one compared with the other characters.
I can't really describe his character too well as he does not Seem to own many levels of personality or character. I do know however that Gerald is of a high social standing mainly because of his attitude to the lower class labourers and the mention of his father's profit making business.Gerald probably saw Eva as a lonely and desperate girl, and owing to the fact she was very pretty probably saw her as a good target for sex. The Phrase used by Gerald to describe their relationship, "I didn't feel about her as she felt about me" is why I believe Gerald just wanted Eva for sexual reasons, Eva however obviously wanted a real relationship with Gerald but did not get it. Even though Eva took the news of the break-up very well ("she was very gallant about it" in Gerald's words) I do believe this was a front and Eva was probably very upset about the break up.I believe this because Gerald did say, "she'd been happier than she was ever before".
Being rejected by Gerald was probably more hurtful to Daisy than the dismissals inflicted on her by Arthur and Sheila Birling because there were strong emotions involved. Daisy was in love with Gerald and being thrown out by him left her not only homeless but heartbroken. Also she had been cared for by Gerald and enjoyed quite a luxurious lifestyle. She therefore had more to lose than previously.
The drain on her emotions would have left her with less fighting spirit so her future looked even bleaker.Personally I put quite a lot of blame onto Gerald because of his callous attitude and disregard for Eva's feelings. Gerald didn't give Eva any notification during their relationship that he didn't feel the same way towards Eva as she did to him. He probably didn't let this minor detail slip to carry on a purely sexual relationship with the doomed Eva. However like the other characters he did not believe his actions were going to affect Eva in a way that it did, which takes some blame off Gerald. We don't hear of Daisy looking for a job again.
Within a few weeks she is back in the Palace Bar, which is where she meets Eric.She is thinking again of becoming a prostitute to earn a living. He is drunk and insists on going home with her and threatens to make a row unless she lets him in. He sleeps with her on this occasion and another two or three times. She then discovers she's pregnant but refuses to marry Eric because she knew he didn't love her. Although it's been a casual affair, Eric has become quite fond of Daisy and wants to take some responsibility.
Despite being from a wealthy family, he has very little money of his own and is forced to steal to provide for her.When Daisy finds out where the money has come from she refuses to accept any more and ends contact with him. Although both Gerald and Eric have had sexual relationships with Daisy, Gerald had genuine feelings for her and looked after her, for a time whereas Eric, "Just used her for the end of a stupid drunken evening, as if she was an animal, a thing, not a person. " He also got her pregnant which in those days was far more serious than today. Daisy now had a baby to think about as well as herself and there was no welfare state to help.
Also while she was pregnant, she couldn't work as a prostitute or get any other job. This would mean she'd be homeless and starving. Society's attitude to unmarried mothers was also very different from today. It was intolerant and Daisy would be looked down on. Eric is sorry for what he has done, but that doesn't excuse his behaviour.
Although not entirely to blame for her suicide, he must take much of the responsibility because he used her. However, he didn't rape her; she was offering her services as a prostitute. Also, she could have married him.It was her choice not to. He tried to help her financially but she refused to accept any more stolen money. Maybe Daisy was too honourable.
Sybil Birling comes over as an arrogant and domineering woman with little compassion. She not only refused help herself but made sure that the other members of the committee refused help too. As the inspector tells her "You turned her away when she most needed help". Although she is the chairwoman of a charity that is supposed to help people, her attitude is hypocritical because she doesn't help people who genuinely need it.
She tells Eva to "go and look for the father of the child. It's his responsibility". She thinks Eva's case isn't a deserving one and that people should sort out their own self-inflicted problems instead of putting the responsibility on others. She is smugly complacent and believes she has done nothing wrong. As she tells the inspector, "I accept no blame for it at all". She has a clear conscience and is convinced of the justice of her position, "I did nothing that I'm ashamed of or that won't bear investigation," she declares.
Even though she is a strong character as we have seen and stands up to the inspector she is so narrow minded as she is led into condemning her son for Eva's death. She also takes the blame away from herself by blaming Eva and even Arthur for starting it all. She never takes responsibility for her own actions and at no point blames herself. I think Sybil should take a lot of the blame for Eva's death. If the charity had helped and given her advice and shown friendliness and sympathy she wouldn't have felt as hopeless for the future as she did, and might not have committed suicide.I think she killed herself because she saw no future for her and her child after being refused help by the charity.
Of all the characters I think that Arthur is the least to blame because he had to get rid of her for the good of his business. He saw her as a troublemaker and it was Arthur's job to keep everything running smoothly. His actions were probably justifiable at that time when the welfare of the workers was not considered. I don't think Sheila should bear as much blame as the others either. She acted in a fit of pique and instantly regretted it.
Her behaviour was typical of a girl from a wealthy upper-middle class family. She always expected to get her own way and to be shown respect by her social inferiors. Today it would be unheard of for a worker to be sacked for grinning. In those days labour was plentiful and cheap and there were no employment laws to protect workers, so it was easy to dismiss someone instantly.
Although both Arthur and Sheila have caused Eva's dismissal, she is still capable of looking after herself and is not too downhearted. However, when Gerald has finished with her she is totally dispirited.Gerald must have known how much she loved him but still abandoned her knowing this. I think for this reason he was more to blame for her downfall.
Again, at the time when the play was set his behaviour would have been condoned as wealthy young men kept mistresses. Eric had a sexual relationship with Eva as did Gerald but he used her more as a prostitute than a mistress. By making her pregnant he put her in an unbearable position and is very much to blame for her downfall. The only two things in his favour were that he was sorry for what he had done and he tried to help her financially but these came too late for Eva.In my opinion Sybil Birling is the most to blame because she knew Eva was genuinely in need but still turned her away in a callous fashion. As the inspector tells her, "You refused her even the pitiable little bit of organised charity you had in your power to grant her".
It is Sybil's uncaring attitude that makes her actions seem even worse. She adamantly refuses to accept any blame and although she is shocked by Eric's involvement she never shows any genuine remorse. In fact she believes she behaved correctly and "did my duty" in turning away an undeserving claim.She is typical of the sort of women involved in philanthropic societies at the time.
Priestly criticises them for sitting on committees merely to ease their own consciences rather than out of a genuine desire to help. Although for this essay I had to choose which character carried the most blame I was not choosing who was legally wrong. I don't believe whether in the 1900's or in modern times that any character in the book would have been convicted for any kind of charge whether manslaughter or murder.Throughout the book I was constantly perplexed to why the Birlings and Gerald worried about being convicted. The use of an inspector instead of another form of character by Priestly puzzles me as the actions carried out by the characters in the book were purely of an ethical position than a legal one.
Maybe priestly could not think of another type of character that could get almost blind obedience and submission from the Birling's and Gerald I don't know, but I do believe another form of a character is needed to be someone who wants to ethically blame instead of legally.
