Lula Payne
asked:
I haven't finished reading this book but don't we need to consider the fact that it's writting about a real period in history? By the time this happened in salem, women didn't have power nor respect, we couldn't expect from A.M. to ignore that, he had to stay true to history, to what really happened. If this is not the case, please explain me why
To answer questions about
The Crucible,
please sign up.
Lisa
I'm not sure I completely understand your question, but here is my answer based on what I see. In the Puritan world of the 1600s, no women did not have any power or voice in the community. Children had even less power than women did, but in Salem, at that time, the children were heard and they were asked for their opinions and given a great deal of power. They chose who was accused and who was not. It was an extremely intoxicating combination. Arthur Miller took a great many liberties while writing the play and often times confused true reality with his own version (as can be seen in his interviews regarding the play). This play needs to be considered Historical Fiction. It revolves around a real time, a true tragedy, and highlights humans who lived through the Salem Witch Trials, but Abigail was a girl of about 12 and did not have an affair with John Proctor, almost all of the girl's ages were advanced for the story, and much of the scandal around Parris was also exaggerated. Going back to history, once the girls (and their parents) realized what accusing neighboring land owners of witch craft could gain them, the accusations ran rampant. Children learned to manipulate situations to garner more attention from their parents, and parents learned to manipulate their children into accusing more and more people for increased wealth. Arthur Miller used this time in history to show a resemblance to the Red Scare of the 1950s. If you were accused of witchcraft in the 1600s, your land was forfeit when you were hung, and your family lost everything, but if you confessed, you essentially got your life back. In the 1950s, if you were accused of being a Communist, your livelihood was destroyed (think Charlie Chaplin), but if you gave up a couple more names, your name got taken off the Black List. My apologies for a very long-winded answer, but I wasn't sure exactly what you were looking for, and I hope this helps.
Vilhelm Schmidt
Very little is known about the actual events being depicted. The puritanical zeitgeist forbade most forms of story telling and record keeping at the time.
This is, however, somewhat negligible because the play isn’t really commenting on the Salem Witch Trials so much as McCarthyism and the communist “witch hunts” of the late 40’s and early 50’s. The Salem backdrop is just a metaphor. The basic outline of events is historically accurate, but all of the dialog is fictional and aimed very specifically at senator Joseph MaCarthy. At its core, the story is about the sacrosanct necessity of due process and credible evidence—two Things that were sorely lacking from American politics at the time. Still are as far as I’m concerned.
This is, however, somewhat negligible because the play isn’t really commenting on the Salem Witch Trials so much as McCarthyism and the communist “witch hunts” of the late 40’s and early 50’s. The Salem backdrop is just a metaphor. The basic outline of events is historically accurate, but all of the dialog is fictional and aimed very specifically at senator Joseph MaCarthy. At its core, the story is about the sacrosanct necessity of due process and credible evidence—two Things that were sorely lacking from American politics at the time. Still are as far as I’m concerned.
Celina
first, we can never be 100% accurate to what we call History because it is mostly based on retelling facts and points of view, no matter how weel researched was the original material, are inevitably present.
second, The Crucible is a work of art, based on the historical recounts, which means that adjustments must be made to meet the intended media, i.e. a theatrical perfomance with specific characteristics, such as time of performance, number of characthers, etc.
third, the author had an intention in mind when he wrote this play, concerned to his own historical moment.
forth, the reader’s/viewer’s internal experience and consequent reception of such work of art will influence how it’s “decoded”.
I believe one must let itself be taken by the hand when reading/watching it, to absorb it as a whole by itself.
second, The Crucible is a work of art, based on the historical recounts, which means that adjustments must be made to meet the intended media, i.e. a theatrical perfomance with specific characteristics, such as time of performance, number of characthers, etc.
third, the author had an intention in mind when he wrote this play, concerned to his own historical moment.
forth, the reader’s/viewer’s internal experience and consequent reception of such work of art will influence how it’s “decoded”.
I believe one must let itself be taken by the hand when reading/watching it, to absorb it as a whole by itself.
Julia Gilman
I completely agree
Raleighhunter
What Vilhelm Schmidt said. The book was about The Red Scare, written to wake up John Q. Public. It could be reintroduced today as a tale against "political correctness".
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more