Intro to Inspector Calls Characters

J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls is a morality play and social critique which scrutinises the interwar British class system and the failure of individual responsibility within it. Through its tightly knit character ensemble, Priestley delivers a scathing commentary on the hypocrisy of the upper classes and the potential for societal change. The six central characters — the Inspector, Mr Birling, Sheila, Gerald, Eric, and Mrs Birling — are not merely figures in a drama; they are symbolic archetypes representing moral and ideological positions in society.

The Inspector

The titular Inspector Goole serves as the moral conscience of the play and the dramatic catalyst that exposes each character’s complicity in the downfall of Eva Smith. More than a police officer, the Inspector functions as Priestley’s mouthpiece, delivering sharp indictments of social inequality and capitalist indifference. His final speech encapsulates the play’s didactic purpose: “We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other.”

From his entrance, the Inspector unsettles the complacent Birling household with his “impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness.” He interrogates with an almost supernatural authority, often ignoring social niceties and instead pursuing the truth with relentless moral clarity. The suggestion that he may not be a real inspector (“He never showed you any warrant card, did he?”) underscores his allegorical nature — he is less a man than a manifestation of social conscience and collective guilt.

Crucially, he insists on the interconnectivity of actions and consequences. His belief in moral responsibility over legal culpability reflects Priestley’s socialist ideals: “It’s better to ask for the earth than to take it.” The Inspector leaves behind a haunting warning: “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.” The biblical cadence and allusion to war suggest Priestley’s belief that social change is not only urgent but inevitable.

Arthur Birling

Mr Birling is a caricature of the Edwardian capitalist patriarch — self-important, complacent, and blind to the world beyond his business interests. Introduced with “provincial in his speech” and “portentous,” Birling immediately reveals his ideological leanings through bombastic proclamations: “The way some of these cranks talk and write now, you’d think everybody has to look after everybody else.”

His confidence in the invincibility of capitalism and the impossibility of war (“The Germans don’t want war. Nobody wants war”) would have seemed laughable to Priestley’s 1945 audience, lending dramatic irony to his speech. His prioritisation of profit over people is evident in his justification for sacking Eva Smith: “If you don’t come down sharply on some of these people, they’d soon be asking for the earth.”

Birling’s refusal to learn or change by the end of the play — “There’ll be a public scandal alright, but who here will suffer from that more than I will?” — positions him as the embodiment of everything Priestley wishes to condemn. His concern lies not with morality but with status, reputation, and financial security.

Sheila Birling

Sheila undergoes perhaps the most profound transformation in the play, evolving from a naïve and indulged young woman into someone capable of self-awareness and empathy. At first, she appears shallow, giddy over her engagement and displaying a childish delight: “Oh – Gerald – you’ve got it – is it the one you wanted me to have?”

However, upon learning of her role in Eva Smith’s downfall, she becomes visibly shaken and remorseful: “I’ll never, never do it again to anybody.” Sheila’s decision to accept responsibility, rather than deny it, marks her as the moral antithesis of her parents. Her capacity for introspection allows her to challenge the social structures around her. She becomes increasingly assertive, even interrupting her father: “But these girls aren’t cheap labour – they’re people.”

By the end of the play, Sheila represents the hope for a new, more socially aware generation. She recognises the Inspector’s role as greater than that of a policeman: “He’s giving us the rope – so that we’ll hang ourselves.” Her journey is central to Priestley’s message that change is possible, but only through personal responsibility and reflection.

Gerald Croft

Gerald occupies an uneasy middle ground in the play. As the son of an aristocratic family and a prospective husband to Sheila, he bridges the gap between the old guard (Mr and Mrs Birling) and the younger generation. At first, he is courteous and confident, performing his social role well: “You seem to be a nice well-behaved family.” Yet this image quickly deteriorates under the Inspector’s scrutiny.

His affair with Daisy Renton/Eva Smith reveals a selfish, exploitative streak, even though he attempts to frame it as gallantry: “I didn’t install her there so that I could make love to her. I made her go.” While he may have offered her temporary comfort, he ultimately abandoned her when it became inconvenient. His attempts to rationalise his behaviour reveal a refusal to fully accept moral responsibility.

Unlike Sheila and Eric, Gerald remains largely unchanged. When it seems the Inspector may not be genuine, Gerald leaps to discredit the entire affair: “Everything’s all right now, Sheila. What about this ring?” His proposal that they return to their former complacency is rejected by Sheila — a symbolic rejection of old values.

Eric Birling

Eric is initially presented as awkward and immature, a somewhat ineffectual figure overshadowed by his father. He is described as “not quite at ease, half shy, half assertive,” suggesting inner conflict. As the narrative unfolds, his involvement in Eva Smith’s life is revealed to be both tragic and damning. He admits to having met her while drunk and possibly forcing himself upon her — a moment the play handles with disturbing subtlety.

Despite his serious wrongdoing, Eric’s reaction to the truth is markedly different from that of his parents. He is wracked with guilt and anger, particularly towards Mr and Mrs Birling’s lack of compassion: “You’re not the kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble.” His acknowledgement of guilt and emotional outburst reflect a developing conscience and a rejection of his upbringing.

Eric, like Sheila, symbolises the potential for change. His insistence that what they did to Eva still matters, regardless of the Inspector’s authenticity, shows he has internalised the moral of the story: “The fact remains that I did what I did.”

Sybil Birling

Mrs Birling is perhaps the least sympathetic character in the play. She is cold, self-righteous, and entrenched in class prejudice. As head of a charitable committee, she displays a staggering lack of compassion, especially when she denies help to Eva: “She only had herself to blame.” Her repeated reference to Eva as “girls of that class” reveals her disdain for the working class and her failure to acknowledge common humanity.

Even when she learns that Eva was pregnant, Sybil remains unrepentant: “I did nothing I’m ashamed of.” Her moral blindness is compounded by dramatic irony, as she condemns the unknown father of the child — only to discover it is her own son. Her inability to see beyond social appearances is a key target of Priestley’s critique.

Mrs Birling epitomises the arrogance and hypocrisy of the upper classes. She believes status exempts one from scrutiny or blame. Her refusal to accept any guilt contributes to the play’s chilling ending: a second phone call from a real inspector, ensuring that justice — or at least the reckoning — is not so easily evaded.

Conclusion

In An Inspector Calls, Priestley presents a tightly wound chamber drama that doubles as a moral parable. Each character represents a facet of British society — some resistant to change, others tentatively reaching for it. The Inspector’s final speech is not just for the Birlings, but for the audience. He is Priestley’s final call to action: a reminder that individual choices, however small, ripple outward. Through character and conflict, the play insists that only by acknowledging our shared humanity can we prevent the repetition of historical suffering.