Eva smith

• “One Eva’s smith gone-but millions and millions and millions of Eva smiths and John smiths”

  -priestly uses hyperbolic repetition to presents Eva smith as an insignificant spec in a faceless and nameless mass Which creates the effect that the problem of capitalists exploiting upper class is massive and Eva smith is one of the unfortunate ones caught up in it

  -“John Smith” symbolizes the universality of suffering of the working classes which are largely forgotten and neglected by higher classes
• “she swallowed a whole lot of disenfectant, burnt her insides out of course”


  -audience feels sympathy for her

  -“burnt her insides” emotive language evokes graphic image of torturous pain and suffering

  -disenfectant has connotations of cleansing and purification which may represent how she felt impure so wanted to remove that

  -prostitution is a sin in Christianity and most of England in 1912 was Christian so by swallowing disenfectant she could purify herself and remove sin
• “Twenty four…… she had been pretty-very pretty”


  -pitiable as she had so much potential

  -description juxtaposes earlier description of “burnt inside out”

  -demonstrates how upper class men like Gerald objectified and used women like her for pleasure only based of looks as if she was ugly then Gerald never would have approached her

  “Had” suggests it is all gone. None of it remains which again causes sympathy in the reader as she had so much potential
• “She changed her name to daisy Renton”

  -“Renton” has rent in it which is a euphemism for prostitution in early 20th century. Proleptic irony hints to the reader that she became a prostitute in order to survive in the hostile world

  -audience feels sympathetic towards her as she can no longer work hard to survive like she did previously at mil wards and birling and Co. But go against her morals and sell herself. May have changed her name to try to escape the inesca reality that she is a women of working class
• Preistley intentions


  No lines for Eva smith in the play so priestley inherently makes middle and upper class speak for the lower class. He may of done this so that the upper class could reconsider their actions on the lower classes