Category: Arthur Miller

Throughout history, literature and the way people interpret literature has changed dramatically. Different genres of plays including romance, action, and even heartbreaking tragedies that touch the reader’s heart have been shared for thousands of years. One of the most popular genres would be tragedies. A tragedy, as described by Aristotle, is a story that follows a protagonist who, over time, causes his own downfall because of his tragic flaws. However, times have changed and the way that critics interpret tragic pieces may differ from the way we used to back in the day. One of the most debated literary pieces is the play Death of a Salesman, written by Auther Miller. There is a constant debate regarding the main character, Willy Lohman, and whether or not he should or shouldn’t be considered a tragic figure. Willy Lohman shouldn’t be considered a tragic figure because he does not have the characteristics and the right qualifications.

Tragedies have been shared and told for thousands of years. They would always start off with the main character who is doomed from the beginning. Fate and their own free will lead that protagonist to his/her own destruction. However, throughout the story, the character would learn valuable lessons about themselves by learning from their mistakes and their tragic flaws. Unlike many popular tragedies such as Hamlet and Oedipus Rex, it is argued that the main character in Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman, is a tragic figure. However, Willy shouldn’t be considered a tragic figure because he wasn’t born with doom riding on his shoulders. His fate wasn’t written in stone. Willy’s actions and his tragic flaws are the reasons why he died. Willy chose to ignore the people that wanted to help him and he chose to be stubborn and act “childish and stupid ” (Foster, “Tragedy” 1). Throughout the play, Willy’s only friend and neighbor Charley reaches out to him and offers him a job. The job is closer to home and easier for him to do because of Willy’s old age. However, Willy’s ego was soaring high and he replied with “What the hell you offering me a job for?… Quit insulting me” (Miller “Salesman”). If Willy accepted the job he wouldn’t have to lie about the money and it would have resulted in him and Linda living an easier life. If he was to be a tragic figure, fate would have caused his misfortune, not his idiotic actions.

The first characteristic of being an Aristotelian tragic hero is to be of noble birth. Willy is not born a noble and is just a common man. However, he aspires to be noble and rich just like his brother Ben. It could be said that Willy Lohman is a tragic figure, arguing that times have changed and that in order for the reader to connect to the character, he must be a common man. The reason why Willy must be a common man is that the readers won’t be able to connect to a rich man unless they, themselves are rich. Authur Miller, the author of Death of a Salesman, wrote himself that “the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were.” (Miller “Tragedy” 1). He wrote this to show that back in the day being noble and seeing kings was a common occurrence. However, now that times have changed there aren’t as many kings and nobles as there used to be. So as a result, in order for the readers to connect to the play, Willy should be a common man. However, Just because times have changed doesn’t mean that a definition of a word should change as well. Tragedies have been around for centuries, and the definition of the word shouldn’t change because then it wouldn’t be a unique form of the literary genre anymore. It would just be a constantly changing word. For example, if people were to change to meaning or name of a word or object because it is used in a new way, languages would constantly be changing. The word ‘horse’ for example, the words have stayed the same for generations but the usage of the animal has changed in more ways than one. So just because times have changed the meaning of a word shouldn’t either. And that goes back to the fact that wanting to be noble and being noble are two different things. Just because Willy thrives to follow the American Dream and become successful like his brother, it doesn’t change the fact that he wasn’t born a noble.

In every tragedy, there is a major flaw that the main character possesses. It can range from greed to being lustful, and selfishness. In Death of a Salesman, Willy’s hamartia is his inability to be satisfied with what he already has, and chases his unrealistic fantasy. He believes that he doesn’t have to work hard for the American Dream in order for it to happen, he believes that he is entitled to it just because he lives in the United States. Although Willy does have a tragic flaw that helps lead him to his own destruction, Willy doesn’t learn a valuable lesson from it. In tragedies, both the protagonist and the readers must learn a valuable message that they can incorporate into their own lives. However, in Death of a Salesman, the readers are stuck to really think about the message. And even if they learn something from Willy’s mistake, Willy didn’t learn anything himself. Willy literally dies as a selfish man. He thought that he was sacrificing himself to get insurance money, however, at the same time he mostly wanted to show off to Biff that people will show up to his funeral. He wanted to show his son that he is admired by others and that his life wasn’t a complete lie. This shows that he wasn’t taught anything and his suffering only brought more suffering to others.

In conclusion, Willy Loman from Authur Miller’s play Death of a Salesman is not a tragic figure. This is because he was not born of noble status and doesn’t even act like it. He is unrealistic and selfish. He is filled with tragic flaws that help drive him into destruction, however, Willy was taught nothing throughout the entire play. Willy died as a liar and a selfish man who only cared about the thoughts of others instead of what actually mattered.

The play the “ Crucible” is written by Authur Miller and was published in 1953 as a response to what is known as the “communist scares” in America in the 1950s. The definition of a crucible can be defined as a severe test. Although it also can be defined as a container that can withstand high temperatures, it is often used to melt and change the shape of metals. In the play, the definition of a crucible is used as both a test and a purification process. Miller did a very good job of tying in the definition of the word to the story, for example, the trials can be compared to the severe tests or trials. While the town of Salem can be compared to the container that melts metals also, the severe tests or trials can be compared to how people are fighting themselves and making moral decisions on coming clean or purifying themselves.

The word crucible itself is used as a term of personification within the play. The town of Salem is the crucible, and the people who live in the town of Salem are the crucible substances. Then the idea of witchcraft can be seen as the heat or flames in this comparison. A crucible is used in metal crafts because you can change the properties, shapes, and atomic structure of the metal. They become easier to work with when heated or melted together. The use of definition of severe tests can be applied to John Proctor and the changes we see him undergo throughout the play.

John Proctor is known for having a lot of pride, he will do anything to protect his name. For example, At the beginning of the play, Proctor was stubborn and selfish. An example of this is when he yelled at Mary Warren, “Be you foolish, Mary Warren? Be you deaf? I forbid you to leave the house, did I not? Why shall I pay you? I am looking for you more often than my cows.” ( page.176). Although we do not see these same qualities carry through the play. Proctor also has a lot of baggage weighing over his head when it comes to Abigail Williams. John Proctor had an affair with Abigail and is trying to let go but Abigail is unable to let go of John. John is trying to save his marriage with Elizebeth but is too afraid to confront Abigail that she will tell the town what has happened between the two. The turning point where we see Proctor undergo one of the severe tests is when Abigail accuses his wife Elizabeth of witchcraft. Would he protect his name or would the love he had for his wife overcome that pride and selfishness he had?

John has to decide whether to confess his affair with Abigail. He decided to prove the accusers wrong and confess, “In the proper place – where my beasts are bedded… I know you must see it now.” (220-221). Although Proctor did remain stubborn and prideful when it came down to being accused of witchcraft. He was told if he confessed he would live however Proctor would not confess. At the end of the play, he didn’t show these qualities for himself but for those around him. He was willing to die with the others that were accused, over confessing to something he never did. He tells Danforth that he won’t confess, “Danforth: Do you sport with me? You will sign your name or it is no confession, Mister! Proctor: Praise be to the Lord! Danforth: If you please, sir. Proctor: No.” (239).

Giles Corey also faced a major test. Like Proctor, he was accused of being a witch. When questioned about it, he refused to answer. His decision not to answer leads to him being stoned to death, “Proctor: Then how does he die? Elizabeth: They press him, John. Proctor: Press? Elizabeth: Great stones they lay upon his chest until he pleads are or nay. They say he gives them but two words. “More weight,” he says. And died.” (235-236). There are many alternative titles that Miller could have used. He could have used something along the lines of the “Salem witch trials” or the “Communist scares” that were going on in the time period when the play was written. A title that I believe Miller could have also used is “A Struggle for Power” Power was everything in Salem. The “melting pot” however is a perfect way to describe this story as some characters were easier to confess than others. The severe tests were shown by those who would turn on others to save themselves or who would stand up for the truth in Salem. I believe He chose this title for many different reasons, mostly on the definition of “the crucible”. The title is both mysterious and exact at the same time, making it very effective. Many people are attracted to this book just by its title. No title could have been better for this play in my opinion.

The role of human behavior and motivations within the human experience has been a fundamental part of many texts which explore the depths of humans and their personal experiences. Arthur Miller’s dramatic allegory ‘The Crucible’ represents cold-war McCarthyistic America through the eyes of the village of Salem Massachusetts during the Salem witch trials of 1692. The play strongly represents the author’s own personal experience dealing with McCarthyism and issues such as fear, accusation without proof, jealousy, revenge, and power acquisition by fear-mongering and how this serves as an analogous social criticism of the way ‘Red Scare’ paranoia resulted in a miscarriage of democratic rights. This experience ultimately proved to be a cathartic experience for Miller. Similarly, ‘A Clockwork Orange’ by Anthony Burgess unveils a dystopic futuristic England in 1961 representing an immerging youth culture fixated on pop music, milk bars, drugs, and teddy boy violence. Delinquent activities comprising of home invasions, rape, murder, and violence performed by Alex and his ‘droogs’ expose their experience as a human without authority. Burgess explores the human experience by questioning authority.

In this The Crucible essay, I want to consider how through the use of similar themes, the authors of both ‘The Crucible’ and ‘A Clockwork Orange’ can teach their 1950s and 1970s audiences the importance of the human experience.

Miller wrote ‘The Crucible’ with the aim of projecting his own personal experience of the corruption of authority for personal gain out into the world in the hope that other people would relate. In doing this, Miller effectively shows how hysteria, fear, power, and reliance on lies are inherently dangerous to the effective operation of a community.

During Miller’s time, ‘McCarthyism’ was violently spreading in the United States, as fear about Communism grew into hysteria resulting in personal accusations that had the potential to corrupt a person’s public image. ‘The Crucible’ reflects on Miller’s own personal life experience as he warns of the dangers of such a system, and how these accusations are often brought about through the power of lies.

Miller’s antagonist character Abigail Williams uses the power of lies to achieve her malicious intentions of killing goody Proctor so that she may ultimately marry John Proctor herself. “Let either of you breathe a word or the edge of a word about the other things, and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring some point reckoning that will shudder you”. Miller has used Abigail to destroy Proctor’s life by lying about seeing the various women of the town “with the devil”, essentially using her own power and deception to achieve her desires an allegory for his own human experience with Joe McCarthy, who destroyed Miller’s life. The ensuing chaos caused by Abigail’s actions plunges the town into chaos, leading to the deaths of 18 people, with John Proctor being one of them. Miller uses Abigail to mirror the destructive force that lies can cause within both society and the individual. Such shared traumatic experiences help Miller to connect to his audience.

In the dark comedic Novella, ‘A Clockwork Orange’ Anthony Burgess’ feels that he has a didactic responsibility to reveal the confronting nature of how human motivations and behavior can impact society and also highlight the natural and learned traits of human behavior through the character of Alex as he struggles through feelings of alienation from the world in he lives in. Such feelings, combined with the long-lasting impact of his wife’s brutal bashing and robbing at the hands of four American deserters, have resulted in Alex’s personality being very brutal and overbearing. Burgess has vividly depicted these personality traits and a world without authority in a scene where Alex and his ‘droogs’ ruthlessly and remorselessly rape a woman and brutally bash her husband, in essence symbolizing Burgess’ wife being attacked by Alex and the writer is himself writing ‘A Clockwork Orange’.

As society would not impose its civilizing process on Alex this ultimately led to his sick thoughts and behaviors: “Soon it was trees and dark, my brothers, with real country dark… We filled around for a while with other travelers of the night, playing “Hogs of the Road.” Then we headed west, what we were after now was the old surprise visit, that was a real kick and good laughs and lashing of the ultra-violent.”

Burgess chooses to depict a non-stereotypical view of the teenage world, subverting the audience’s thoughts on the capability of a 17-year-old and his friends. In doing this, he is forced to show us the confronting realities of teenage society in the 1970s, both in England and Russia. This includes aspects that his audience wouldn’t have previously experienced in other Novellas of the era.

Burgess’ personal experiences in the Soviet Union offer a glimpse of the oppressive government and the seeming lack of individual freedom among the citizens of the nation. He experienced totalitarian control limiting human behavior and freedom.

Dynamic characters are people who change over a work a literature, authors use dynamic characters to show change and progression throughout a work a literature. This can be used to get the reader more engaged and have more feeling for the characters. The author of ‘The Crucible’, Arthur Miller, has used this writing technique to make his characters much more interesting and make the reader continue to read on. One such character in ‘The Crucible’ is Reverend Hale, he is brought in to investigate the witchcraft that has been going on in the town of Salem. During the beginning he starts doing his job he questions the people involved and all say that they did not do it. Towards the end of the book, he starts to realize that witchcraft is probably not real and ends up quitting his job. As the reader can see he goes from being stuck up and witch hunting to being nice and not believing in witches. In ‘The Crucible’, it is clear that Arthur Miller uses dynamic characters to get the reader more engaged.

In the beginning of the play, Reverend Hale is brought in to the question the people who have been accused of witchcraft. During this part of the play, he is very stuck up at times and refuses to see anything from a different perspective as he believes that the only plausible explanation is witchcraft. These flaws make him a very hard character for the other characters to deal with and most of them end up not liking him, because of his accusations. But when the court gets together, he listened to what the girls are saying when they accuse everyone. He believes them and everyone they accused on how they were actually seen with the devil. During this part of the play, he doesn’t think about the validity of witchcraft. And does not see the accused people’s perspective and not once think that the people who accused them are the ones actually lying. This causes Reverend Hale to also be very one dimensional during the beginning of the play and not consider anyone else’s thoughts or opinions. One such example in the book ‘The Crucible’ of this is: “Hale: resolved now: Tituba, I want you to wake this child. Tituba: I have no power on this child, sir. Hale: You most certainly do, and you will free her from it now! When did you compact with the Devil?”. As you can see during this quote Hale is telling Tituba to wake the child but she says she has no power over her. Hale does not even question the fact that she is telling the truth. This shows that Hale cannot see anyone else’s perspective but his own and does not seem to understand that Tituba actually has no control over her. As you can see reverend Hale started in the beginning of the book being very one dimensional and not being able to see other perspectives.

During the end of the play Reverend Hale goes through a very drastic change. He goes from not seeing others perspective on witchcraft and not even considering what they have to say. At the end of the play Hale starts to realize that he does not believe in witchcraft anymore. He starts considering that the girls might be lying and that no one deserves to lose their life to being accused. For instance, when John Proctor was being accused, Hale told him to tell the lie saying he did do it because Hale was sure that witchcraft was not real. As you can see, Hale starts to see others perspectives such as John Proctors. Towards the end of the book ‘The Crucible’ John Proctor is about to be killed and Hale tells him to lie and say that he did use witchcraft even though Hale knows he did not. “Life, woman, life is God’s most precious gift; no principle, however glorious, may justify the taking of it. I beg you, woman, prevail upon your husband to confess. Let him give his lie”. This quote is when Hale is asking Elizabeth to tell John to tell a lie and confess. Hale knows the girls are lying and does not want John to lose his life just because the girls are telling a lie. For instance, he says “no principle will justify taking it”, meaning that John’s life is a gift and nothing will justify taking it away from him. This is especially true since Hale believes that John did not do anything. As you can obviously can see Reverend Hale has changed drastically by the end of the book.

In the play ‘The Crucible’ by Arthur Miller, Reverend Hale makes an internal change throughout the story by shifting his opinion from being convinced the witchcraft was real to making the realization that it was all a ploy for vengeance towards other characters in the story.

From the beginning when Hale was introduced, he gave a sense of authority when he came into a room. Hale was sent in from the town of Beverly to inspect the supposed hysteria passing through Salem. When he comes to check on Reverend Parris’ daughter, Betty, she was lying unresponsive on her bed. To emphasize the authority he holds, Hale brings his books along with him. The room falls quiet while Hale explains, “The Devil is precise; the marks of his presence are definite as stone, and I must tell you all that I shall not proceed unless you are prepared to believe me if I should find no bruise of hell upon her” (185). Hale believes that if he is to carry through with his work with diagnosing and curing Betty, everybody in the room must also share the faith that his words are true. He doesn’t want anyone to question his authority because he was sent for the sole purpose of assisting with discovering the reasoning behind Betty’s behavior. Without the reputation Hale holds with him, he would not have been requested by Parris and his diagnosis would not have been taken seriously by the people of Salem.

However, once the accusations began spreading around town from everyone about witchcraft running amok the people, Hale began to question if the stories were becoming facetious. Those who held grudges against one another started to accuse the other person of witchcraft so they would be hanged. While in the courtroom in Act III, Abigail and the girls were claiming to see a bird in the rafters that was being sent by none other than Mary Warren, who was conveniently on trial against Abigail. Hale began to catch onto the manipulative game the girls had been playing all along and immediately announced, “I denounce these proceedings, I quit this court!” (227). The change in character Hale experiences is severe because he had such a strongly held belief regarding witchcraft in Salem before making the discovery that it was only pure hysteria that swept through the town. Had Hale not realized the witch trials were all a game, it would’ve never crossed his mind to withdraw from the trials because of his previous success in discovering witches. But over time, as he catches onto the true meaning behind the accusations, Hale’s character switches as he confronts the lies by denouncing the court proceeding. He was done with the blindfold of hysteria that covered the eyes of everyone in the town and the false accusations being made without a shred of reasoning behind them. Clearly, Hale’s mindset changed on the witchcraft. He initially holds a heavy belief in the trials, but as time progresses, he stops accepting the false statements made by the people of Salem.

The Crucible is a play that was written by Arthur Miller in 1952. It is the play that preceded Death of a Salesman, his first success as a writer for which he won a Tony award and the Pulitzer Prize. The play is based on the Witch trials of Salem, Massachusetts where 20 women accused of being witches where hanged in 1692

This play by Arthur Miller was written to last, and it is part of the selective canon (texts that we can find in a library), of the critical canon (texts and authors most frequently approached by experts in theoretical studies) and of the pedagogical canon (texts most commonly studied in English Philology studies).

When we read or see this play, we establish a form of communication with the author that is brings social discourse (politics and religion) to the front. Regarding the production process of the play, when Arthur Miller wrote the play the Red Scare and McCarthyism where at its peak. He took the concept of a contemporary repressive form of government and social injustice and placed it in 1692.

Back in the 1950s, Miller was considered a Communist sympathizer by the Government. Fear made many critics didn’t support the play and many friends stop talking to him. This is also represented in The Crucible, since he emphasizes how rumours, intolerance and hysteria can affect the most important values of our society and destroy someone’s life. Arthur Miller uses in his play a literary discourse based on lack of explicitness, ambiguity and symbols to reveal the evils of 1950s “Happy Days” America to his audience.

This play has been staged for the last 60 years, with both naturalistic and non-naturalistic approaches. The Crucible establishes a permanent dialogue with the audience through language and stage, which is emphasized by the oral potential of Drama.

Sadly, most of the issues that Arthur Miller criticises in his play and that he himself suffered during his life, are still present in the 21st century. Repressive regimes, abuse of power and extreme forms of religious beliefs are still part of western and eastern societies, making this play permanent in time. In the 21st century we have moved from the Red Scare and McCarthyism, to the “fake news” Era of social media bullying and shaming.

Being a play, The Crucible reflects the main generic features of Drama. The play begins with an Overture that explains the characters’ background and witchcraft hysteria as well as the time of America’s founding, bringing to the front space and time which are both essential aspects of Drama.

It has many different staging possibilities since there have been both naturalistic and non-naturalistic productions of this play. Naturalistic productions have a timeline that takes place in chronological order. In more non-naturalistic productions of The Crucible, space and time are managed with more freedom (flashbacks or flashforwards) through stage directions that can give the audience information that the dialogue between characters can’t. The ‘fourth wall’ is not broken in the traditional naturalistic production of the play. The audience has access to every detail and event that takes place, but no interaction takes place with the actors on stage.

The way characters use language is also one of the most important aspects of Drama. Arthur Miller makes his characters speak (vocabulary use, grammar) as people from Massachusetts in 1692 did, in order to make them more believable.

Arthur Miller’s use of characterisation in his play helps us follow the story of the play even giving access to events that took place before the action of the play begins. He uses explicit author-characterization through his stage directions that describe the characters’ personality and attitudes. He includes narrative sections (not classified as stage directions) in the play that explain the characters’ background and the period when the play takes place. What every director needs to decide is if these narrative sections should be included or not. The experience we have as a reader of the play can be very different to the one of an audience member if the director does not include these narrative sections. Since, as readers we will be able to have insight to all the details provided by the narrator and therefore, our opinion about the different characters will be influenced by him. However, whether these sections are included or not, they are very useful for the actors and director in order to stage the play and make the characters more believable.

Miller is sympathetic towards the views of John Proctor; he depicts him as an honest man that stands by his principles. Proctor can be compared to Miller in the sense that the playwright also refused to lie when he took the stand on court. Miller didn’t name or accuse people when he had to testify before the House Committee on Un-American activities during McCarthyism. Both Proctor and Miller can be said to find redemption through martyrdom (the acceptance of punishment rather than the compromise of one’s beliefs). Proctor is also described through other-characterization, since it is the play’s main character and most of the events that take place are affected by his actions.

Another feature of this genre is Dramatic irony that Miller uses in order to increase tension to the play. Dramatic irony occurs when something is known or understood by the audience but not by the characters on stage. There are multiple examples, such as for example when the audience knows that Abigail is not telling the truth, but the other characters do not. Another example takes place at the end of the play when everybody but Elisabeth Proctor, knows that John Proctor has confessed to sleeping with Abigail Williams. The author also uses other types of irony, such as for example situational irony; when visited by Reverend Hale, John Proctor forgets to name the 6th commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Another example of the use of irony in the play is that although the people of Salem are obsessed with being “decent” and “pure”, those who blame the devil are actually spreading it, and those who speak the truth are accused of siding with the Devil.

As a subgenre, The Crucible is sometimes classified as a Melodrama because of its hero John Proctor. Peter Brooks, in The Melodramatic Imagination (1976), says that ‘melodrama acts powerfully in society’ and that melodrama ‘is very good at expressing hysterical symptoms (because of the exaggeration of gestures)’. This is closely related to The Crucible since the emotions and feelings of the 1950s American population are related to the ones from the people from Salem in 1692. In that sense individuals begin to think as a single unit, and a kind of mob mentality unfolds as group hysteria.

As Miller includes psychological descriptions of the characters in the narrative sections of his play, I think that the critical theory of Psychoanalytic criticism can help address the literary discourse reflected in The Crucible and to know its psychological and emotional dimension. This theory brings the play closely connected to the author and to the context of creation (since McCarthyism and the Red Hunt became part of the American psyche at that time).

According to this theory, the expression of the playwright’s unconscious is used as a way to free himself from society’s inhibitions. Therefore, Miller becomes ‘the other’ and can be simultaneously himself and another person (John Proctor). The author or reader can be freed through literature from the repression that society unfolds on him. Whether is McCarthyism for Miller or Puritan religion and theocracy for John Proctor.

Freud stated that “the essence of repression lies simply in turning something away, and keeping it at a distance, from the conscious” and that “frustration or prohibition by social forces could lead to neuroses and hysteria” (Boag). This is clearly shown all throughout the play with Abigail’s character and the consequences of repressed sexuality. So, if Puritan religion is based on repression, the mass hysteria represented in The Crucible is directly linked to the puritan nature of Salem’s society.

If we analyse the play according to Archetypal criticism, we can find recurrent ancient symbols such blood (sin and sexuality). In The Crucible, fear and evil are represented through darkness and the wilderness since the Salem villagers feared the attacks of Native Americans.

In conclusion, there is something special about this allegorical play that places it apart from other works by Arthur Miller. In my opinion it features the immanentism values of what a literary text is: a human experience through language. The Crucible is timeless, because although the play is set in 1692 and written in the 1950s, it broadens our knowledge and makes us think of our own lives from a different point of view (it can be interpreted from different perspectives). Miller uses literary language and the genre of Drama to provide a distinctive and personal view to the reader and audience member of how a repressive society, religion and government can have a negative effect on the individual’s freedom and most basic rights.

Arthur Miller was born on October 17, 1915, in Harlem, New York. The early years of Miller’s life did not go smoothly. Still, while having many problems with his grades, Miller was very athletic playing many sports including football, at which he excelled; he also ran track. Miller portrays this in one of his shorter works, Danger: Memory!. The two main characters in this play look back on their lives and regret much of what they did. They wonder if any good came out of their lives. Much like Miller, they do not straight out regret what they did during their lives, but do not commend themselves. Although this work displays Miller’s high school years very clearly without putting characters and him in the middle of regret, all of his earlier works put the characters on one side or the other. Miller attended Public School 29 in Harlem while he was growing up. A little later on, he moved to Harlem in the Midwood Section of New York. He then attended James Madison and Abraham Lincoln High Schools. Now that Miller is much older, he looks back on his life and regrets not trying as hard as he could in high school. Miller does not directly regret his high school years but does wish he could have tried harder. Perhaps the problem was that Miller did not know what he wanted to do with his life until after he graduated. Similarly, in Death of a Salesman, the main character, Willy Loman, has two sons who have both graduated from high school but uncertain about what to do with their lives. Miller portrays his years after high school through these two sons.

Before attending college, Miller worked for his father’s business. Shortly there after he worked in a Manhattan automobile parts warehouse and realized he wanted to do something with his life. After Miller decided what he wanted to do, he attended the University of Michigan in the Department of Drama. There he went and decided to study under Kenneth T. Rowe after reading one of his books. Miller’s grades from high school did not help him get to this position, but luckily he made it by his little work that he had put in. Unfortunately, Miller had to pay for a majority of his tuition because the lack of success of his father’s business. This money he earned before college was put towards his tuition. After it ran out, Miller worked for two years at the University to pay off his tuition where he washed dishes and became the night editor of the Michigan Daily. Miller also won a lot of money from substantial playwright prizes. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in English.

He used this degree to get a job as a writer in the Federal Theater Project when he returned to New York in 1938. Although this job was a great experience for Miller, it became obsolete before any of Miller’s works were published. During the years of World War II, Miller wrote dramas for two programs. One of them was called Columbia Workshop and played on CBS; the other was called Cavalcade of America and was played by NBC.

“In the exigencies of radio writing he [Miller] learned how to handle quick shifts in time and setting and the fusing of reality and fantasy, two elements that he would carry back to his stage work. Several of the scripts he wrote suggest that from the start Miller was a moralist intent on dramatizing the redemptive power of an individual’s refusal to cooperate with corruption.”

With these writing jobs, Miller had two part time jobs; he drove truck and was a steamfitter in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Miller escaped the draft because of and injury he got in his high school years playing football. Since Miller was not drafted, he was sent to army camps to observe and gather information for The Story of GI Joe. The producers that sent Miller only used a little of his information. Reynal published the better parts of Miller’s report and gave it the title Situation Normal in 1944.

Miller’s only novel he wrote was published a year later by the same publishing house. However, people did not like reading Miller’s works as much as they liked seeing them on stage. Although Miller’s plays were often huge hits on Broadway, Miller did have a few works that were not great successes or a success at all, even though many of his works won him awards and much fame. Miller’s first play that made the stage of Broadway was The Man Who Had All the Luck. This was one of his less successful works. Playing in November of 1944, it stopped playing after four performances. After this play, Miller decided to change his type of writing to adapt of the “realistic” theater of that time. Miller’s next Broadway play brought him the New York Drama Circle Award for the 1946-1947 season after 300 performances.

Miller was brought up Jewish by his parents, Isidore and Augusta Miller. This Jewish upbringing contributed significantly to his style of writing. Miller often ties in religion with his works. Many characters will often attend church and talk about God. Isidore was a clothing manufacture and came from Austria-Hungary. His father, often-called Barnett was a public school teacher and was native born. After Miller was old enough to decide what he wanted to believe in, he broke off from Judaism. Miller’s mother was more the sensitive type and knew more about the culture Miller was growing up in that his father. Miller’s father was referred to as a “gruff entrepreneur.” Miller had an older brother named Kermit and a younger sister named Joan.

Besides being a teacher, Miller’s father also owned his own business. This business was not much of a success. In Death of Salesman, Willy Loman has the exact situation; he has trouble keeping his business going. Miller worked for his dad before his college years and strongly disliked the way people treated his father. This play is one of Miller’s favorite works because it is semiauto-biographical.

Miller decided to take a break after his play A View from the Bridge was released in 1955. This break lasted for nine years because of some writing problems. These problems came from some unfortunate situations in his life. In 1956, Miller and his first wife, Mary Grace Slattery, got a divorce. During the same year, Miller was charged for contempt in the court for not giving names of former left-wing associates to the House Un-American Activities Committee. Miller was later cleared of this charge. Soon after Miller was divorced, he married the actress Marilyn Monroe. During Miller’s marriage, he released the movie The Misfits in 1960. After five years of this marriage, the two were divorced. After their divorce in 1961, Miller married a photographer, Inge Morath, who was born in Austria. Together they wrote a book called In Russia, which described their trip through the Soviet Union. After Miller’s third marriage, Miller wrote the play After the Fall. This play describes a man who will not marry for a third time. Although Miller denies that he purposely related this book to his marriage, there are obvious connections. The man in this play eventually finds a way by confronting himself. Miller claims that he wanted to demonstrate the “individual’s part in the evil he sees and abhors.” Many people do believe Miller was talking about his past. This controversy actually helped the play make its way.

Another example of Miller relating his works to his life is the many complications that go on in the aging salesman’s life Death of a Salesman. Miller directly relates himself to the salesman Willy Loman. Willy is not the normal person in the world today, but rather an annoying, down-on-his luck man. He is not so abnormal that nobody can relate to him but rather so close to the average person that many people can relate to some of his struggles. Willy Loman feels that he is a failure as a father. Being the father of two selfish sons, he struggled with suicide for a long time. However, nobody knows for sure if Miller was ever struggling with suicide through his life full of problems. Through this book, Miller does a great job of relating to a salesman’s life, even though he had no connection with any salesmen before writing this book. This play was an incredibly written drama. It doesn’t seem as if this play was written but rather a real life story. It has so many real life situations and many of them are unavoidable in our lives today. Miller really turned people’s views toward the theater. This play is a drama that will never be forgotten. Charles Moritz says, “It took Miller only six weeks to write the masterpiece that had been germinating in him so long and which some theater critics and historians regard as the great American play: Death of a Salesman, a tragedy about hollow values, personal and social.

Death of a Salesman played in 1949 and played at the Morosco Theater where it showed 742 times. It won Miller the Pulitzer Prize and a New York Drama Critics Circle Award. This play that people are still reading five decades later was made into a movie in 1952 and again a few years later.

Miller also relates his problems to a story of lies through The Crucible. This play was considered to be one of Miller’s greatest works. It played for seven months starting in January of 1953. This play won Miller the Tony Award. There is a lot of truth but also partly false when comparing the Salem witch hunts with those of the McCarthy Communist hunts. The Crucible is repetitious but overall is well done. By watching or reading the first few chapters of The Crucible, many will understand how Miller was at the top of the list in popularity for a social dramatist. He was at the top over the whole world partly because of how he only uses liberal ideas in all of his works. Many other dramatists dealt with dangerous ideas. Although Miller is very liberal, he stands apart from the contemporary, liberal dramatists in the U.S. As Miller got older he started to use more symbols as he got more experience.

Miller has a consistency in his works; there is a thematic lack of community. A great example of this is Miller’s play called Incident at Vichy. This piece of work gained faith that Miller lost over his nine-year absence from the playwright world. The faith Miller gained helped him get elected to be the president of a writing club. Several months after this election in 1995, Miller turned down an invitation to the White House to attend the signing of the Arts and Humanities Act.

As Miller ages, he still is very critical towards the theater. He specifically puts down the theater of New York. Miller believes the prices are too high and that the theater is missing adventure. This lowered the middle class population in the New York Theater. Some people blame this on the increasing films, television and pop music. Although Miller does not believe this is the reason, he believes the word is far more important than the picture. Miller also criticizes Broadway and many other plays and playwrights. Miller calls Broadway irrelevant but enjoyable and nice.

Miller was unhappy with the way people responded to some of his works. Miller shows his frustration by quoting, ” ‘I already had one child, and I couldn’t see myself going on writing play after play and getting absolutely nowhere. I sat down… to write a play about which nobody could say to me, as they had with all the other plays, “What does this mean?” or “I don’t understand that”. Not all of Miller’s works brought these questions. “As theater, Danger: Memory! Is gray, too, resolutely resisting the efforts of a high-powered cast to inject drama. While the plays are meant to be casual, they’ve been staged in the intimate Newhouse Theater. The writing is studied and ponderous. Mr. Miller seems to have begun with his themes and conceits, then worked backward to fashion (and diminish) his characters to fit the predetermined patter”. The two plays of this boo have different settings and different stories. The plays do have a lot in common. Both plays have common tones and consist of specific, common metaphors and both have the same key prop, a phonograph record. This helps the author’s message, but does not help the naturalness on the stage. Another similarity is a simple case of amnesia comes over one of the main characters in both plays. Leonora, in “I Can’t Remember Anything,” cannot recall simple things. She questions “the value of her own existence.” In “Clara,” the father, or Mr. McMillan, cannot remember any evidence or clues to help the police officers. He slowly recalls some things to help solve the case of his murdered daughter but still cannot bring up everything.

In an interview in July of 2000, Miller tells how it is hard to write political plays now because of the “absence of a single cataclysmic event threatening us.” Miller also commented on terrorist attacks and called them a “war against humanity.” He explained terrorists as people who are angry at life and desire to kill.

Miller is known to speak in a precise, unhurried manner. Miller is also known to be alert, intense and watchful. Miller is a tall man and is described as “angular,” “rangy” and having an “outdoor quality.” He is described to put together his shyness with a great sense of himself. Miller was called a storyteller who is a simple man and has a great memory. He is commended for being concerned with people and ideas. He has a great mind with much wonder.

In the play, ‘The Crucible’ Arthur Miller writes about a fire and its representation of hysteria and a crucible to depict that in times of hysteria, making assumptions will only create additional chaos and paranoia by leading one further from the truth.

The concept of fire through symbolism and a biblical allusion demonstrates that assumptions will only lead one further from the truth. In Act One, when Goody Putnam mentions the death of all her children but one, she justifies this by claiming “in this village. [there are] fires within fires” (26) when mentioning the fires, Miller alludes to the bible in Ezekiel’s vision of the four saints in which he describes a scene of confusion and chaos which is used to represent the present circumstances in Massachusetts where Goody Putnam assumes that because of supposed witches running loose, the town has dissolved into chaos. By assuming that, the witches running loose are the root cause of the current panic and the sickness of the children Goody Putnam lead the discussion further away from the truth, that the children had become sick not because of witchcraft but because of fear and shock. Thus demonstrates that because of reckless assumptions made, one will only stray further from reality, proceeding to exacerbate the situation with fabricated lies. Furth more during the court session, Judge Danforth uses fire to represent their court as one that reveals the truth declaring that “we burn a hot fire here, it melts down all concealment”.

Through the symbolism of the fire, representative of a crucible, Judge Danforth asserts that the court is just and gets to the bottom of matters by comparing them to a fire that would melt away the cover of anything to reveal the truth at hand. However in declaring their omniscience, Danforth assume that under him they are able to come to the truth no matter what which leads them to believe that at present there really are numerous witches in town. In reality, there really are no witches but because of the Judges presumptuous character he believes that he is right which only reveals that because of one’s presumptuous character, the matter at hand will only create further confusion and hysteria as then, the truth is neglected and refused to be acknowledged.

In summary, though Arthur Miller use of the fire, one can realize the danger of assumptions and its detrimental impact on a society as it leads one further from the truth until it is too late to recognize the truth.

The Crucible is a play written by American playwright Arthur Miller in 1953 and takes place in the Puritan New England town of Salem Massachusetts. This play mainly focuses on and describes the true events of witchcraft during the years of 1692/93. During these years fear, hysteria, and panic defined the way people lived and acted towards one another. If the author was to write this drama in the years 2017/2018 he would have to change his view on society and change certain ideas and characteristics of the characters for them to be up to date to the modern world.

I think that Miller’s main message in ‘the Crucible’ is how governments can abuse their power as both senator Joe Mc Carthy and the accusers in the play only accused of their own gain, power being the obvious reason. Also, he could be saying that both the accusations of the 1950s and those of 1692 were unjustified as the main accuser (Abigail Williams) was found to be untrustworthy when she stole money from Parris and ran away. This play happened in Puritan New England in 1692/93, but what if it happened in Hungary, where at that time the Great Turkish war was in progress. People wouldn’t worry about witchcraft and the views would be different. Also, the language would be different, using a lot of odd words from another language. If the play would be written in different time periods with the same message, it would be taken differently. Nowadays the vast majority of people take witchcraft as a meaningless, made-up thing, so the whole book would be taken differently because back in the day, as we can see witchcraft was taken seriously and people would be falsely convicted and later executed. This doesn’t happen these days and that is why I think time, place and language can later the message of the story. I think that if the play would be written in 2018 it would discuss the problems of today. For example, it would discuss gender inequality, terrorism, and the problems of today’s world. Arthur Miller reflects on the paranoia of McCarthyism in his play.

Another thing was that Arthur Miller changed Abigail William’s age and we know that she was eleven years old girl not a 17-year-old. He did this probably on purpose. Perhaps it’s because he wanted to display her not as a little immature girl but, as a young mature teenage girl. So that people can understand her two-faced personality in a different and easier way. Just imagine for a minute what if her age was eleven and the way the author characterized her personality, her attitude so for some people it’ll become much harder to understand the way she reacts and interact with people and especially with John Proctor. Just think for a minute why would an 11-year-old girl go insane, and crazy over a married guy who is already in his thirties and has a wife. So basically what the author is trying to convey is a message through her age, dialogues are a reflection of something that is very significant to the play. If Abigail William’s age was 11 it would complicate the story in a couple of ways one of them is that she could have participated in the rituals that have been performed in the forest and therefore t would be hard for the court to accuse her.

For me, to make the play more profitable in 2018 id would have to talk more about romance and relationship and personal lives of characters. It would incorporate the reader a lot more.

‘The Crucible’ is a play that took place in 1952 by the American playwright Arthur Miller. This story is melodramatic of the Salem witch trials that took place in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1692 and 1693.

People tend to make their decisions based on what others believe in. Having integrity is very important to protect our reputation and protect our values and morals. ‘The Crucible’ shows that those who favor integrity by admitting mistakes and refusing to lie just to save their own lives are good role models because they died knowing that they were being truthful with themselves and they weren’t letting anyone strip them away from their values. The meaning of integrity itself means telling the truth even if the truth is ugly. Some of the characters who were being tormented and accused of witchcraft started to believe that they were indeed guilty of these acts because they were under so much pressure. On the other hand, some characters had clear values and morals. These characters held onto the knowledge that they were innocent. These people were executed but they died with integrity.

The theme of integrity is directly related to the problem of mob mentality depicted in the novel. The witchcraft scandal included Abigail and the girls dancing in the forest. Abigail drank chicken blood to harm and get rid of Elizabeth Proctor. An example of mob mentality is when Abigail threatens the girls to come into their rooms at night with a sharp object and kill them if they told the truth, she only wants the girls to say that they were dancing in the woods nothing more. Abigail has a forceful personality so she is determined to get them to listen and follow directions. Abigail uses a threatening tone as if she’s in authority and makes it very clear to the girls that she is capable of hurting them. “Let either of you breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things, and I will come to you in the black of some terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you” (Miller, 1952, pg.20).

Mob mentality is usually the influence that someone has on others. One person’s decision could influence the next person’s decision. Abigail was not going to confess about drinking chicken blood to get rid of Elizabeth Proctor, neither would the girls. Abigail has a skill that she has mastered throughout the play, manipulation is her best friend. She wants to seem innocent and protect her name. Even if that means threatening the girls so they would keep their mouths shut. Abigail will get her way by any means. It doesn’t matter who gets hurt in the end.

Nevertheless, I believe that we should never have mob mentality. We should always have clear values and be able to make responsible decisions based on those values. Mob mentality may not lead people to make the right decision. However, people who have clear values and who value integrity will make their own decision based on how they feel, their thoughts, and their values. They will not let others influence them.