Character Analysis: Inspector Goole & Gerald
Inspector Goole: More Than a Police Officer
Inspector Goole is the most enigmatic character in An Inspector Calls. He arrives at the Birlings’ home, conducts his investigation, delivers one of the most powerful speeches in modern drama, and then leaves. After his departure, the family discover he is not a real police inspector. So who — or what — is he? Priestley deliberately leaves this question unanswered, and the ambiguity is central to the play’s power. The Inspector can be read as a symbolic figure — the voice of social conscience, a supernatural being, a time traveller, or even a divine messenger. His name, “Goole,” suggests “ghoul” — a phantom or spirit — hinting that he exists outside the normal rules of reality.
What matters most, however, is his function. Inspector Goole is Priestley’s mouthpiece. Every word the Inspector speaks reflects Priestley’s own socialist beliefs: that we are all responsible for each other, that the class system is unjust, and that society must change. The Inspector does not just investigate a crime — he exposes a moral failure. He forces each Birling to confront the consequences of their selfishness and challenges them to change.
The Inspector’s true identity is deliberately ambiguous. He could be supernatural, a time traveller, or a symbolic construct. What matters is his function: he is Priestley’s mouthpiece, delivering the message that “We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other.” Focus your exam answers on what the Inspector represents, not on solving the mystery of who he “really” is.
The Inspector’s Method
The Inspector interrogates one character at a time, maintaining strict control over the investigation. He refuses to be distracted by Birling’s attempts to intimidate him (“I was an alderman for years — and Lord Mayor two years ago”) and is unmoved by social status. He speaks with calm authority: “Public men, Mr Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges.” This line is a direct challenge to Birling’s belief that wealth entitles him to special treatment. The Inspector insists that power comes with moral obligation.
His method is deliberately linear — he deals with one person before moving to the next. This creates a rising pattern of tension as each revelation is worse than the one before. It also prevents the family from collaborating to protect themselves. Birling tries to take control several times, but the Inspector always reasserts his authority. Priestley uses this to show that moral authority trumps social authority — the Inspector’s power comes from truth, not from money or title.
Several details suggest the Inspector is not entirely human. His name (“Goole”/ghoul) hints at the supernatural. He seems to already know everything before he asks his questions. He appears just as Birling declares that people should look after themselves — as if summoned by the statement. He controls time within the play, dictating the pace of revelations. And his final prophecy (“fire and blood and anguish”) comes true through the World Wars. Priestley was influenced by the morality play tradition, in which abstract concepts like conscience, death, or virtue appear as characters to judge the living. The Inspector can be read in this tradition as the embodiment of collective conscience — a figure who exists to force moral reckoning.
The Inspector’s Key Quotations
“Public men, Mr Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges.” This quotation directly counters Birling’s belief that wealth exempts him from accountability. The balanced structure — “responsibilities” set against “privileges” — suggests they must be equal. Priestley argues that those with power have a greater duty to society, not a lesser one.
“We don’t live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other.” This is the play’s thesis statement. The short, declarative sentences give it the force of absolute truth. The repetition of “we” is inclusive — it addresses the Birlings, the audience, and all of society. “One body” carries a Biblical allusion (1 Corinthians 12), giving the message spiritual authority beyond its political content.
Gerald Croft: The Uncomfortable Middle Ground
Gerald Croft occupies a unique position in the play. He is not a Birling by blood, but he is deeply embedded in the same class system. Birling says Gerald’s mother, Lady Croft, comes from “an old county family — landed people,” which makes the Crofts socially superior to the self-made Birlings. Gerald is charming, confident, and knows how to navigate social situations. He is the character most likely to succeed in Edwardian society precisely because he understands its rules.
Gerald’s treatment of Eva/Daisy Renton is the most ambiguous in the play. He genuinely cared for her — he gave her food, shelter, and affection. He even admits he was “sorry for her.” But the power imbalance makes his “rescue” problematic. Eva was destitute; Gerald was wealthy. She had no choice but to be grateful. When Gerald ended the affair, he gave her money and moved on. For Eva, the loss was devastating. Priestley forces the audience to question whether Gerald’s kindness was genuine compassion or a more palatable form of exploitation.
Gerald’s behaviour after the Inspector’s departure is revealing. He is the one who discovers that “Inspector Goole” is not on the police force. He telephones the Infirmary to confirm no girl has died. He presents these findings as if they exonerate everyone. Gerald aligns himself with Birling’s desire to return to normal, effectively choosing pragmatism over principle. He even offers Sheila the engagement ring again, hoping to restore the status quo. Priestley uses Gerald to show that emotional responses during the investigation (Gerald was genuinely distressed when describing his affair) do not necessarily lead to lasting moral change. Gerald felt something in the moment, but when the pressure is removed, he reverts to protecting his position and reputation.
Gerald occupies the middle ground between the older and younger Birlings. He shows genuine emotion during his confession but ultimately aligns with Birling after the Inspector leaves. Priestley uses him to argue that feeling sorry is not enough — genuine moral change requires action and commitment, not just a moment of regret.
Eva Smith: The Invisible Centre
Eva Smith never appears on stage, yet she is the most important character in the play. She exists only through the descriptions of others, which means the audience must construct her from fragments — just as the upper classes only ever see the working class in fragments: as workers, servants, or statistics. Priestley uses Eva’s absence to make a powerful point: the people who suffer most from inequality are invisible to those who cause their suffering. Eva represents every working-class person exploited by the system the Birlings uphold. Her changing names (Eva Smith, Daisy Renton, “Mrs Birling”) suggest she could be any woman — or every woman — failed by Edwardian society.