How far does Priestley present Eric as a character who changes his attitudes
towards himself and others during the play?
1. Relationship with father
2. Shifts view of lower classes
Eric’s attitude undeniably changes as the play progresses, most notably with regards
to his relationship with his father as well as the shift in his view of the low classes
and his responsibility towards them.
At the very beginning of the play, it appears evident that Eric is not wholly confident
around his family. The opening stage directions describe him as ‘half shy, half
assertive’. The choice of language by Priestley here is interesting; by repeating the
adjective ‘half’, it implies that Eric is not able to be wholly himself – there is a sense
that he is unsure of himself, the fact that he is ‘half shy’ could suggest that he is
hiding something from his family. The fact that this is followed by him being ‘half
assertive’ only adds to this impression. This is the first thing we learn about Eric, and
perhaps this was a conscious decision by Priestley in order to indicate to the
audience that Eric is unable to be himself around those that we would expect him to
be most at ease with: his close relatives. He is not able to ‘assert’ himself around
them, which could imply that he is restrained and limited from expressing himself by
his family. This impression is only furthered when – early on in the play – Eric
struggles to ‘assert’ himself when conversing with his father. Eric attempts to offer his
opinion on his father’s views on war, commenting, ‘Yes, I know, but still - ”. The use
of the dash indicates that Eric is unable to share his viewpoint; his father interrupts
him, indicating that his opinions are not valued by his father and that Eric struggles to
have his voice heard with his family. By the end of the play however, it is very
apparent that Eric has gone through a permutation. Far from the ‘half shy’ character
we were introduced to at the start of the play, Eric is frequently described as ‘bursting
out’ when speaking to his father, highlighting that he can no longer be controlled and
his opinions suppressed. The verb ‘bursting’ gives the impression that Eric could no
longer be held back; it is as if he has been bottling up his opinions and true character
for so long that he is unable to do so anymore. Indeed, his interactions with his father
only confirm this interpretation. He confidently informs his father that he is ‘not the
kind of father’ that he believes he could go to when ‘in trouble’. The phrase ‘not the
kind’ is interesting, as it highlights the distance between Eric and his father; there are
not of the same ‘kind’. It could certainly be seen as Eric standing up to his father and
making his views known, something he clearly struggled to do at the beginning of the
play. Indeed, after the Inspector leaves, it is Eric who does the ‘cutting in’ when his
father attempts to reprimand him. He is no longer struggling to have his views heard
by his father, rather, it is he who now dominates the conversation. Priestley perhaps
chooses to contrast Eric’s character from the beginning to the end of the play in this
way at this way in order to symbolise the ability of socialists – as represented by Eric
– to stand up to capitalists – like Mr Birling. As Priestley himself was a founding
member of the Common Wealth Party (which later joined with the Labour Party), it is
unsurprising that he wished to champion an emerging socialist such as Eric.
It is also interesting to note the way in which Eric’s sympathetic views on the lower
classes are in many ways nurtured by the events of the play, to the extent that by the
time the curtain closes, Eric is an avid defender of the poor, and begins to mimic the
Inspector’s own words. There is a clear sense in the opening of the play that Eric’s
views have been heavily influenced by his family. When the Inspector first arrives, he
comments to the Inspector, ‘Yes, as you were saying dad’, demonstrating that in
many ways, at this stage, Eric’s views on society are dictated by his father,
especially when we consider that he was re-asserting his father’s proclamation that
‘a man has to look after himself’, an evidently capitalist sentiment. However, as Eric
learns of Eva Smith’s demise and his involvement in it, it could certainly be argued
that Eric’s natural sympathies seem to lie with the less privileged in society. He refers
to his father’s treatment of her as a ‘damn shame’, which clearly indicates that he
disagrees with his actions. The use of the adjective ‘damn’ here only emphasises the
strength of Eric’s opinions; it seems he vehemently opposes his father. This is only
furthered by the abstract noun ‘shame’, which indicates that Eric views his father’s
behaviour towards Eva Smith as something to be ashamed of. Clearly Eric has
begun to change in his relationship with his father; he wishes to distance himself
from his actions. Indeed, by the end of the play, Eric’s attitude is in stark contrast to
the opening. He asserts that ‘we all helped to kill (Eva)’, the determiner ‘all’ here
highlights Eric’s socialist viewpoint as it points to the need for shared responsibility.
When we consider that he follows this statement by telling his family that this is what
‘matters’, it is apparent that for Eric, the knowledge of his involvement in her death
has had a real impact on him; it ‘matters’. There is a sense that this experience will
impact Eric’s future behaviour and will no longer allow what his father ‘says’ to
influence him. Eric’s opposition to the poor treatment of Eva would have perhaps
resonated with the audience of 1945, who, having experienced two devastating
world wars, were far more open to breaking down class distinctions given the need
for people of all classes to come together to fight for victory. The notion of ‘all’
sharing responsibility was far more prevalent, as evidenced by the landslide victory
of the Labour Party in 1945; the appetite for change was clear.
Ultimately then, the character of Eric goes on a journey from the son of a capitalist
father, influenced by Mr Birling’s views and unable to stand up for himself, to a
responsible and opinionated young man, capable of admitting his faults and standing
up for what he believes in: socialism. Eric’s journey of enlightenment and maturity is
cleverly employed by Priestley to encourage members of his audience to undergo a
similar shift in attitude, regardless of their background or prior beliefs or attitude. Eric
emerges from the shadow of his staunchly capitalist family in spectacular fashion.
The message is clear: if he can do it, anyone can.