In JB Priestley's timeless and symbolic sermon on social conscience, he explores Eric Birling's change: from an intractable, pompous young man to a mature and increasingly confident socialist. His transformation is perhaps the easiest that the audience can identify with: he blames the world for his mistakes but gradually accepts his social responsibility. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In the opening stage directions of the first act, Eric is introduced as an obnoxious and juvenile boy. Priestley wrote the work in 1912 and believed many philosophers, one of whom was John Locke who theorized that all human beings are born with "blank slates" (empty minds) and are then shaped by nurture rather than their inherent nature. Indeed, Eric is initially presented as an immature man through the stage directions: "early twenties, not quite comfortable, half shy and half assertive". The adjective "early twenties" could suggest that he may not have much life experience due to his young age, however, later in the play he has a growing independence from his family (instigated by the Inspector) and Priestley does this to show how younger generations have a malleable mentality, perhaps foreshadowing its inevitable change. Another interpretation of this direction is the juxtaposition between “shy” and “assertive” which immediately tells the audience that he is flawed from the start and is an awkward outsider as he “suddenly laughs”. The audience feels nervous and suspects that Eric is hiding something from his family. Furthermore, the juxtaposition can highlight his drunkenness which will be revealed later in the play. The fact that Eric mixes these worlds together: his binge drinking and his conservative, capitalist family, suggests that he wants to escape capitalism. This makes the audience sympathize with his hateful but edgy vision as, after two devastating world wars, people in 1946 wanted a more peaceful and socialist future. Secondly, in the rising action of the play, Eric appears to emulate Inspector Goole through his use of religious imagery, but he also takes on the role of a man who has revealed and repented of his mistakes, implying that he is in the process of cleansing himself of his former capitalist beliefs. JB Priestley also believed that nihilism was created by a lack of moral conscience and belief in God. As the Inspector rails against nihilism we can see its direct influence on Eric's person, effecting his change from a hateful and hateful young man. recalcitrant to a free-minded, socialist man: 'And that's when it happened. And I don't remember: this is the hell thing. My God!' The lexical field of Hell and Heaven can be seen through the words "hellish" and "God", indicating that through the inspector's moral conscience, he was reminded of his moral obligations towards the vulnerable and prompted to reject his previously unethical behavior. However, he may also emphasize the reckless sin of lust he has committed, yet he refrains from the topic by using the euphemism "it". This causes the 1946 audience to become angry at their lack of religious and social awareness towards women (even though in 1912 women were seen as possessions). Another interpretation of the lexical field is that it may allude to a second great Christian sin, sloth, because Eric was too lazy to see or analyze his own actions and how they affected Eva Smith's life and livelihood. Priestley uses Eva's nickname to highlight how Eric has corrupted "Eva's" innocence and;.