An Inspector Calls - Sheila

"Sheila" - Analysis of her name

The first evident reference to the fact that the truth has been obscured from the view of Sheila is in her name which is a near homophone for "Shield her" perhaps suggesting that the Birling family believe that she requires protection. Moreover, Sheila's name stems from the Gaelic form of Cecilia which means 'blind'. On an explicit level, this could be in the form of protection from the rest of the world because women at the time were seen to be weaker than men and it was widely believed that they were unable to look after themselves so should would need to be shielded.

However, on a more implicit level, this could be suggesting that the Birling family want to protect her by preventing her from discovering the truth about the bourgeois consumerism that takes over the entirety of the Edwardian society. They do not want their upper class reputation to be diminished in any way by her actions so she needs to conform to their way of life and the only way to do that is to prevent her from learning about any other political ideologies.

Opening Stage Directions

n the opening stage directions, there is only a brief description about Sheila's character perhaps suggesting that she is seen as an unimportant character due to her gender. This is supported by the opening stage directions of Sybil Birling where she was merely referred to as "his [Arthur Birling's] wife" which reinforces the idea that women were seen as second-class citizens that are their husband's possession. However, the stage directions of Sheila does tell us that she is "very pleased with life and rather excited" suggesting that she is content with the suffering that occurs in the society around her that she is so far oblivious to as she holds the same myopic and self-centered view that she has been taught to hold by her parents who don't value "community and all that nonsense".

Morality Play

Evokes biblical connotations as each character is guilty of committing at least one of the seven deadly sins. Sheila is guilty of wrath and envy when she spitefully complains about Eva Smith. Perhaps, through the character of Sheila Birling, Priestley uses the morality play structure to teach a 20th-century audience a series of lessons that relate to his beliefs about social responsibility, age, gender and class. The audience is invited to enjoy judging these characters - they are also forced to question their own behaviour. Priestley would have hoped that people watching the play would have left the theatre as better people.

'(half serious, half playful) Yes - except for all last summer, when you never came near me, and I wondered what had happened to you.'

The stage directions when Sheila is 'half serious, half playful' suggests that the actress says this line seriously and playfully as this is Priestley's dramatic intention. This suggests that Sheila's character, although appearing cheerful, is actually sensible. The quote also suggests that she holds grudges as she still holds this knowledge from 'last summer' against her soon to be husband. The first of many hints that all is not as perfect as it seems, in this case a hint that Gerald might be hiding things. Sheila has genuine concerns about the relationship and actions but she covers this with a flirtatious and jestful tone. Such hints builds tension in the audience and drive the play forward; foreshadows the conflict that is to come.

Priestley presents Sheila as a loyal fiancé, however he also presents her as one who is not afraid to challenge her husband to be. Sheila is caught in two minds, "half playful" and "half serious" and it's as though she doesn't know what the best course of action is. She's 'serious' because she suspects that Gerald is being unfaithful and is 'playful' because she still sees it as her role to put up with it and acts flirtatiously in order to be a good prospect for marriage. This can be seen through the stage directions, where she raises doubt by being "half playful, half serious" when talking about Gerald's absence. Here, her "half seriousness" challenges the social constructs of the time, as by suspecting her husband's adultery, she proves that unlike her mother's relationship, she wants it to be based on pure love rather than a business trade or a monopolising tactic. On the other hand, she is only "half serious" and is in fact "half playful". This suggests that she is aware of his actions, however still permits him to do as he pleases. Here, Priestley uses Sheila as a symbol to represent the sexism at the time and the oppression of women; they desperately wanted to speak out and demonstrate that they were "serious" but the gender walls built at the time refrained them and forced them to cover up their seriousness with a "playful" and passive attitude. As Sybil Birling says "you'll [Shiela] will have to get used to that, just as I [she] did".

'(Excited) Oh - Gerald - you've got it - is it the one [ring] you wanted me to have?'

The pronoun 'you' implies that not only is Gerald in control of their relationship, but he also controls Sheila's mindset. The fact that she poses a convergent question (closed-ended question) connotes to the reader that she adheres to not only Gerald's preferences, but her outlook on life also revolves around her husband, and she obeys the way in which the ruling class should conduct themselves within society.

The verb 'wanted' creates a sense of ownership and entitlement- it is almost as though he has a right to make Sheila's decisions for her, as her husband to be. This has been done intentionally by Priestley to represent the way in which women were treated during Edwardian England- their sole purpose was to merely support their husbands, but never by necessarily offering their own opinion or advice.The fact that Gerald now has the ability to make decisions for Sheila perhaps implies that she has become nothing more than a possession that Gerald is free to manipulate as he pleases.

The fact that Gerald chose the 'ring' is equally symbolic of his dominance within the relationship. A ring is a symbol of not only love, but a covenant between two parties- it is supposed to be emblematic of a mutual agreement between two people. Conversely, since Gerald had the final say on which ring he presents to Sheila as a supposed token of their love, this implies that their relationship isn't reciprocal in nature, but is in fact controlled entirely by Gerald.

Again, this has been done by Priestley to show the lack of gender equality at the time the play is set. Gerald and Sheila are both members of the ruling class, yet Gerald is perceived as the more dominant member of the relationship simply because he is a man. Priestley aims to teach the reader an important lesson about equality- irrespective of whether you're a woman, you are free to make decisions for yourself, without the fear of being coerced by the opposite sex into fulfilling their wishes instead of your own.

'Oh-it's wonderful! Look- Mummy- isn't it a beauty? Oh - darling - [She kisses Gerald hastily]'

Sheila needs the expensive symbol of the wedding ring to validate her engagement. This suggests that she is superficial, materialistic, concerned with appearance. In this case, the ring is not a confirmation that the engagement is one of love but the material nature of the ring confirms that it's a business deal. Previously, only has verbal promise of engagement to Gerald, however this means little to her, she requires material proof to physically identify their love, showing that she upholds the same selfish and materialistic views and capitalist attributes of her father.

'Oh-it's wonderful! Look- Mummy- isn't it a beauty? Oh - darling - : Language is fragmented and broken up, perhaps showing the gesture was unexpected as 'all last summer' Gerald never 'came near' Sheila. Fragments show level of excitement and inability to express her gratitude.

The language is childish, showing that she is easily bought.

Structure is significant, she turns to her mother first to show her the ring, signifying the greater female empathy and ability of comprehending the significance of the exterior features of the ring, then turns back to Gerald, he is an afterthought.

Priestley revealing the ring itself serves as situational irony. A circle has no beginning or end and is therefore a symbol of infinity. It is endless, eternal, just the way love should be. It is a symbol of devotion and an agreement between two parties to love and cherish one another for the rest of their days; they will be committed to one another. Unbeknownst to the audience, this vow has already been broken due to Gerald's infidelity.

By using childlike colloqualisms such as 'mummy' to address her mother makes the audience automatically view her as immature, not as a grown-up who is about to be married. Her focus on the superficial aspect of her engagement ring, the appearance rather than the meaning and her inability to digest how this links with the harsh reality of the fate of Priestley's symbol of the working class, Eva Smith, solidify our view of her being naive and apparently conditioned by her family to follow this bourgeois regime. In the Edwardian society, and arguably in the modern society, a rich woman simply couldn't marry just because she was in love, she needed to ensure that she was financially secure.

'(coming farther in) What business? What's happening?'

'Oh, how horrible! Was it an accident?'

What was she like? Quite young?'

When Eva is first discussed, Sheila's dialogue is predominated with questions in this page, displays her naturally inquisitive and analytical nature.

Sheila wants to know more about Eva as a person. However, fails to ask about her disposition but rather chooses to superficially ask questions about her appearance; this presents her as superficial as she is unable to look past a skin-deep level. At this point, Sheila doesn't formulate a coherent and sophisticated argument/opinion, but merely asks a plethora of questions. Just like an inquisitive, naive child asking questions help them make sense of the world around them that they are just beginning to learn about, Sheila equally asks questions to make sense of this situation. For a child, questioning the world is an integral part of maturing and this suggests that Sheila is still trapped in this childish, developmental stage. In order to progress and mature, it is necessary that her parents no longer restrict her from learning about different political ideologies so she is able to hold her own opinion.

'But these girls aren't cheap labour - they're people.'

his section runs close to the overriding message of the play: that capitalism exploits the misery of the many for the betterment of the few. Sheila realises it sooner than the rest of her family. Priestley uses the character of Sheila to represent his own views of social responsibility.

She offers hope for the future and Priestley uses Sheila as an example of people's changing attitudes towards those less fortunate than themselves. She is sympathetic towards Eva and other girls in her position, recognising that they were "not just cheap labour but people". She accepts that her actions impacted on Eva's life and that she cannot disconnect her actions from the effects these have on others. She recognises and understands the Inspector's message that we are all collectively responsible for all that happens in the world: 'we are members of one body. We are responsible for eachother'. At times she acts as almost an assistant to the Inspector, in that she supports his criticism of the other characters, becoming his mouthpiece when he has left the stage.

Although this axiomatic statement would have been a truism for the modern audience, the belief that working class women are possessions, "cheap labour" would be common within the Edwardian society. Moreover, the distance with the dash that separates the two statements represent how distant these concepts are to Sheila.

Sheila is trope used to pick up Priestley's message. Sheila argues that these "girls" are treated as less than women and metaphorically treated as "cheap labour" so are dehumanised and objectified as less than people. Sheila emphasises that they should not be diminished as an object or children because they're 'people'.

'(Miserably) So I'm really responsible?'

Sheila is beginning to take social responsibility for her actions when Priestley uses the leading question "so I'm really responsible?" Priestley's use of the rhetorical question demonstrates Sheila's acknowledgement of her cruel, inhumane act of essentially firing Eva Smith, but she still requires validation from others to confirm that she is responsible.

'(laughs rather hysterically) Why - you fool - he knows. Of course he knows. And I hate to think how much he knows that we don't know yet. You'll see. You'll see.'

The stage directions 'laughs rather hysterically' suggests the inspector is having a profound affect on Sheila. Sheila's progression to adhering and sharing the same views as the inspector is surprising and strange; it's almost as though the inspector has invaded her conscience and causing her to behave erratically. In a society where females are subservient to males, particularly their spouses, it is strange for Sheila to undermine Gerald's dominance and eminicance by using the noun and adjective 'you fool'. Or perhaps 'laughing rather hysterically' is Sheila's response to the very thought that she has to marry someone who is deeply unfaithful. 'And I hate to think how much he knows that we don't know yet. You'll see. You'll see': it's almost as though she and the inspector's minds are connected and alludes at the idea of the inspector being supernatural and omniscient. She sees a deeper purpose in the Inspector's visit than the investigation of a death.

The repetition of "You'll see" is used to emphasise the fact that before the end of the evening, everyone will be proved guilty which shows that Sheila has superior insight to the rest of the family.

Sheila has gained the knowledge that we have a responsibility for others and she maintains this throughout the rest of the play. During the inspector's questioning of the other characters, we realise how perceptive Sheila is. Gerald's reaction to the name 'Daisy Renton' makes Sheila aware that Gerald knows her. She is also the first to wonder whether the Inspector is what he makes out to be.

'I must obviously be a selfish, vindictive creature.'

Sheila is projecting how she feels about herself onto Gerald and by doing this she is passively victimising him without actually blame shifting. The imperative verb and adverb 'must' and 'obviously' reflects the certainty with which Sheila says this line; it is indisputable. It shows that she is aware of how badly she has behaved and also shows that she is mature and perceptive enough to forecast Gerald's thoughts. Alternatively, Sheila's tone seems to overwhelm with self-deprecating sarcasm where the noun 'creature' could be hyperbolic. Priestley's use of zoomorphism may not be used as a metaphor but an exaggeration and hence the reference to Sheila being a 'creature' for her actions may be meant to be taken lightheartedly. This in turn creates a paradox for Gerald as he can't produce a satisfactory answer for Sheila due to the ambiguity as to whether she actually agrees or disagrees with her statement.

'(staring at him) (She gets close to him, wonderingly.) I don't understand about you.'

Priestley may be using the characters' proxemics as Sheila 'gets close to him [the inspector]' as a metaphor for Sheila's moral beliefs becoming closer to the Inspector's as the play progresses. Despite this, the inspector still remains enigmatic and sibylline and although their moral beliefs are adjacent, her understanding of him still remains hazy. Strangely, Priestley doesn't use the idiomatic expression 'I don't understand you' or 'I don't understand', but rather the proposition 'about' suggests Sheila understands the inspector's didactic purpose but suspects that he may be a supernatural being or serves a greater purpose beyond her understanding.

'(slowly, carefully now) You mustn't try to build up a kind of wall between us and that girl. If you do, then the Inspector will just break it down.'

The stage directions mention that Sheila speaks 'slowly', and 'carefully', showing the Inspector has taught her to watch what she says, thinks and does because everything has consequences. The use of 'you mustn't' shows her language has changed from being one of accepting her father's reprimands to telling her parents what to do.

The effect on the reader is this profound concept that the Inspector is more that just a usual police inspector, he has the ability to break down the barriers between social classes and Sheila is the one that is attempting to prevent her family from building 'a kind of wall' as she begins to realise that inevitably the lower class are abundant and so the lower class can break the wall down again and again.

'He's giving us the rope- so that we'll hang ourselves.'

The metaphor is very sophisticated and demonstrates how Sheila has matured as a character. Sheila begins to echo the Inspector's dialogue and attempts to translate it into a language that her family will understand, however she is dismissed as hysterical. She begins to adopt the Inspector's structure of speech. Initially, when questioning her he laid out what she did and then the consequences, now here, Sheila is demonstrating what the family and doing and then the possible amplified consequences of their actions.

"Us", shared pronoun, acknowledges the harsh reality that she has been blinded to; her parents have indoctrinated her to shut out the lower class from her life. She now sees there is an apparent wall between her class and the lower class.

'(She hands him the ring)'

'In fact, in some odd way, I rather respect you more than I've ever done before'... 'You and I aren't the same people who sat down to dinner here.'

heila's act of handing Gerald back the ring is symbolic of her conversion from socialism to capitalism. Sheila is beginning to see beyond materialism and her eyes have opened to the suffering that the working-class people have to endure for the sake of the avaricious upper-class citizens. The illustrative action when 'she hands him the ring' is so revolutionary because it marks the change that the more 'impressionable' youth can bring; social reformation is possible if the youth manifest Priestley's message. By refusing the ring, it demonstrates how Sheila is forcing close the rigid gap that separates the different social classes. This is because by doing so, Sheila is losing her riches and Priestley is demonstrating her character change --- she is no longer the materialistic girl she once was as she unites with the plebeians. With this stage direction, Priestley also highlights the bravery of Sheila by resigning the marriage proposal. Not only does she undermine Gerald's masculinity and male chauvinism by refusing to marry him, but she also defies the social constructs built up in the Edwardian Era of females being subservient by tolerating infidelity. Sheila is beginning to challenge such a misogynistic society and this alludes to the beginning of the Suffragette movement.

Sheila shows how much she has changed when she confronts Gerald about his affair. The audience would expect her to react hysterically, as she usually does, but in fact she is very mature 'in some odd way, I rather respect you more than I've ever done before', the audience admires her for being this forgiving, it shows that she understands that conflict is not the solution to problems. She shows that she understands that this event has changed them all: 'You and I aren't the same people who sat down to dinner here', the audience is sure that Sheila will go on to be a better person as she carries Priestley's message. Moreover, Priestley suggests that with enlightenment comes sacrifices -- a compromise has to be made as Sheila has relinquished her relationship with Gerald. Priestley suggests that the relationship is fragmented when he uses the pronouns 'you and I' rather than 'we' implying that their unity has been broken.

'Mother, I think that was cruel and vile'

The synonymous adjectives 'cruel and vile' emphasises the animosity Sheila feels towards her mother. The syntax is short and blunt and no euphemisms have been used to alleviate her mother's actions. Priestley doesn't develop her sentence with connectives because Sybil Birling's actions are enough of an explanation and thus it would be likely that the audience would be in agreement with Sheila. Earlier in the play, Priestley uses the direct address 'mummy' and by using childlike colloqualisms to address her mother makes the audience automatically view her as immature. As Sheila has developed, she begins to address her mother more formally with the direct address 'mother' to present how she has lost sympathy for her and she feels distant towards her.

'I tell you - whoever that Inspector was, it was anything but a joke.'

Clearly, Sheila has been affected by the message. Sheila, like Eric, allows Priestley to show his opinions on youth. He felt that there was hope in the young people of post-war Britain. He saw them as the ones who would help solve the problems the country had with class, gender and social responsibility. This is seen in how Sheila is deeply affected by Eva's death, she accepts responsibility straightaway and promises to never behave in such a way again. This is not the case with the older characters, Mr and Mrs Birling and even Gerald do not accept responsibility and we do not get the impression that they will change.