Gerald likely uses euphemism when describing where he met Daisy Renton to downplay the significance of their encounter and to soften the potential impact on Sheila and the Birlings.

Euphemism allows Gerald to present the situation in a more socially acceptable or less offensive manner, avoiding explicit language that might cause discomfort or embarrassment.

By using vague or indirect language, such as referring to the location as "the Palace bar," Gerald aims to minimise any negative reactions and maintain a sense of decorum within the conversation.

Overall, Gerald's use of euphemism serves to manipulate perception, protect his reputation, and preserve the social facade of respectability.

Gerald is portrayed by Priestley as being conscious of the cruelty of the upper-classes, yet he shows no desire to change society and thereby compromise the privilege that he commands.

It is important to understand why Priestley presents Gerald in this aware, yet conformist, state. Priestley portrays Gerald as stuck at a moral crossroads; he can either fight against the class system or continue to use it to his advantage.

Despite Gerald’s actions, he is presented by Priestley as possessing a conscious and a moral compass (despite failing to follow this).
● He condemns the actions of “alderman Meggarty” who is a “notorious womaniser”, and he perceives himself as a knight in shining armour who saves Eva, the damsel in
distress. Therefore, Gerald’s desire to help Eva is clear, yet only to the extent of maintaining his own privilege and comfort, with his priorities at heart.

● The public perception of Gerald is of utmost significance to him as he is prepared to help Eva in private but maintains an image of an honest and respectable upper-class man in
his public sphere of influence. He sees an inherited duty to uphold and preserve society as it is due to his family business and the need to fulfill his father’s expectations of him.

Therefore, Gerald needs to maintain the systemic immorality of the class-system even if he disagrees with it.
● Priestley sets Gerald apart from the Birling parents, as at least Gerald can recognise its flaws - something which Mr and Mrs Birling cannot fathom.

Perhaps Gerald did love her and it wasn’t just exploitation. This is evidenced as Gerald leaves, almost immediately after the Inspector asks "​were you in love with her?"​ and Sheila exclaims “​just what I was going to ask!​”

Him leaving could be to avoid the question, which he doesn’t answer, meaning that he may have ​genuinely loved her​.

It may also indicate that he is overwhelmed by emotion​, having now learned of her death and of his role in it, demonstrating that he does care for her.

Gerald is clearly moved by the news of Eva’s death, feeling ​guilt and remorse​.
● Gerald’s ​staggered and interrupted speech​ reveals the true sadness that he feels at her death, as he stammers, “​I – well, I’ve suddenly realised – taken it in properly – that she’s dead​”.
○ Gerald, however, is clearly attempting to suppress this emotion, eventually “​pulling himself together​”, as Priestley describes in the ​stage directions​.
● In British patriarchal society of 1912, it was not socially acceptable for men to show their emotions, as being sensitive was considered a ​feminine trait​ and was seen to ​undermine their masculinity​ and authority.
○ Despite this stigma, he is unable to entirely conceal his emotions, perhaps demonstrating that he had genuine feelings for her.
● It is clear that until this point Gerald hadn’t expressed much remorse over their former relationship.
○ Until it directly affects them, the upper classes ignore the consequences of their actions, allowing them to continue​ living a life of​ ​luxury without guilt​.

Priestley uses ​transactional language​ and the ​semantic field of finance ​when Gerald describes his relationship with Eva;
"​install her​" "​this business​" "​anything in return​".

This exemplifies the addiction the upper class have for wealth and income to the extent where they ignore anything else such as a vulnerable woman

Gerald’s use of​ business terminology​ undermines his claims of caring for her and conflicts with the tone of his story. This ​capitalist corruption​ of human relationships is reflected through his marriage with Sheila, done for the financial and social benefit of both families.

● Priestley uses the character of Gerald to represent the individualism of the upper-class.
● He disillusions (disappoints) the audience, who hopes that by the end of the play he would
change his capitalist and selfish attitudes, as he fails to do so.
● Therefore, Priestley uses Gerald’s failure to develop his sense of social responsibility, to convey how entrenched these upper-class attitudes are; even death won’t change them.

He only cared about Eva because of his own lustful desires as evidenced by Priestley’s ordering of words: “she was pretty - soft brown hair and big dark eyes - [breaks off] My God!”.

Priestley’s use of aposiopesis (abrupt break off in speech) comes directly after Gerald describes her beauty.

Therefore, revealing that Gerald only felt attracted to Eva physically as he feels the
greatest grief when remembering her physical beauty.

Priestley portrays Gerald as caught between the older and younger-generations - forming this middle-generation. This liminality (at a position between two boundaries) extends to his attitudes and ideology.

Gerald is exhibited as less flexible and less impressionable than Sheila and Eric
in his convictions, however he does accept his own responsibility.
Priestley portrays Gerald as deliberately ignoring his sense of morality and chooses to try and forget his actions.

He intentionally chooses to only react to the injustice that is visible and obvious to him, rather than the institutionalised prejudice that the class-system causes.

This is evident
as he only helped Eva because it was visible to him and he couldn’t ignore it as “Old JoeMeggarty, half-drunk and goggled-eyed, had wedged her into a corner with that obscene fat carcase of his”

The guilt that Gerald has for his abuse of the vulnerable Eva Smith and making her his mistress is evidently short-lived. It is important to consider why Priestley portrays the degree of guilt that Gerald feels is almost insignificant.

● This unsympathetic response is exactly what the Inspector condemns and is attempting to preclude (prevent). The change in Gerald’s attitudes has to be permanent for real change
in society to occur and this is what the Inspector attempts to instill into the characters.

He experiences guilt and has a conscience but tries to reason and manipulate his
conscience.
○ This is not an outright rejection of responsibility, but a manipulation of events to alleviate his responsibility and to justify his actions.

The one-sided story of events that is provided by Gerald must be viewed with scrutiny as Eva is not alive to validate his story; he has little motivation to tell the truth. It is crucial to your understanding of the play to consider why Priestley only describes events from the perspective of
the man.
● Gerald’s motive is clearly to absolve himself from as much responsibility as possible; he will be self-preserving. Priestley has already evidenced Gerald’s tendency to lie in order to
save his own skin, as he hid his affair from Sheila with the facade of being “busy at the works”.
● His guilt is further shown through the immediately defensive tone of Gerald as he questions the Inspector “where did you get the idea that I did know her”. This allows Gerald to gage how much the Inspector knows and therefore adapt his story to be consistent with the Inspector’s knowledge.
● Gerald’s character shows how men are in control of the stories of women, as Priestley’s use of an androcentric perspective evidences this. Eva is vocally absent from the play – women are not represented and therefore this allows their abuse to be covered up

Gerald proposes that the Inspector was lying and that Eva was, in fact, several different girls. This is despite being the one who provided the evidence and verified that Eva was in fact the same person from his description.
➔ Gerald recognised that she was "very pretty" and had "big dark eyes".
➔ Also he remembered that Eva had to "leave after a strike" and "said something about the shop too".
Arguably, Gerald knows that Eva is the same person, but he is trying to excuse his own behaviour and also convince himself that he is innocent by later suggesting that “there’s still no proof it was really the same girl”.
Priestley presents this as a pattern of the upper-classes; they commit sinful actions which they
know are wrong but convince themselves it is acceptable. This behaviour is displayed by other characters within the play:

● Eric euphemises his actions as "when a chap easily gets nasty".
● Mrs Birling claims that "I did nothing I’m ashamed of" and that with regards to Eva, "she
had only herself to blame".
● Mr Birling dogmatically states that "she (Eva) had to go" and that "it's my duty to keep
labour costs down".
● Even Sheila knew it was wrong and "I felt rotten about it at the time", yet she pushes it to
the back of her mind and forgets about it, rather than changing her behavior.
The characters know their behaviour and treatment of the lower classes is wrong but manage to
forget the things they do and go on living their privileged lives like nothing happened.