Task One

Reading and Defence of The Crucible

Prepared for

Ms. Mussig

Prepared by

Maya Young

English Extension

Part One: The Reading

Created from the mind of the world renowned playwright and author Arthur Miller, is the horrifying story of deceit, accusation and guilt of The Crucible. Written in 1953, The Crucible is a confronting play that explores the unfathomable true events that took place in the small religious village of Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, where by members of the Salem community began accusing others of dealing with and practising the magic of the Devil. These accusations are what led to the Salem witch-trials. Through this play Miller is able to emphasise the absurdity of these trials, which resulted in the hangings of twenty innocent people.

I personally came across The Crucible through my English Extension class. To be perfectly honest, when I first picked up this text, I was unsure of what to expect. Apart from reading Shakespeare, I had never been exposed to reading in the playwright form. I did not know what my approach to the play was going to be or how I would react to reading it, or if there was a certain way in which I was supposed to be affected by it. I also had yet to read a text written by Arthur Miller, so I was unaware of his style of writing and again did not know what to expect from it. After finishing the play for the first time I was satisfied that I had thoroughly enjoyed reading the story, whilst developing a love hate relationship with some of the plot lines, characters and themes that it portrayed.

At the beginning of the story, I found myself sympathizing with the character Abigail Williams. She is a young teenage girl, in love, and I felt myself trying to relate to her and the way she may be feeling, being rejected by the man she loves. Before Abigail’s true personality was revealed, I thought that I was going to like her, and as I felt that she portrays John Proctor as someone who had used her and led her on, I did not think I was going to like him at all. However, this opinion quickly began to reverse itself. Although my immediate reaction was to make excuses for her when she first started to act inappropriately, my positive opinion of Abigail did not even last to the end of Act One. Abigail’s true evil nature reveals itself quite early on in the play, through her manipulation of the young girls of Salem. I first began to doubt Abigail immediately after she made the threat “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, p.19) to some of the other young girls who were dancing with her in the woods. As Abigail’s evil behaviour only increases throughout the rest of the play, she easily became one of my most despised characters.

Additionally, although I did not like John Proctor at first, after losing all my trust and sympathy for Abigail, Proctor soon became one of my favourite characters. Despite it not being referred to directly in the play, I was able to assume the sexual nature of Proctor and Abigail’s relationship and it, quite frankly, baffled me how and why he would have ever been interested in Abigail. Proctor appeared to me as one of the few people in Salem who is actually sane, as he is not completely consumed by religion and also, as he is one of the only characters who does not turn to accusing others of witchcraft and who is not fooled by the girl’s pitiful acts.

Reverend Hale was also a character whom I at first despised. I believed that he was foolish and blinded by his religion which is evident when he states, “The Devil is precise; the marks of his presence are definite as stone” (Miller, 1952, p.35). However, this opinion too began to change as the story progressed. I soon found myself feeling very sorry for Hale as he realises the mistake he has made in believing the girls and that he is responsible for the conviction of many innocent people. As a result of his guilt, he blames himself for their deaths, saying “There is blood on my head! Can you not see the blood on my head!!” (Miller, 1952, p.121). This made me feel guilty for disliking him at the start of the play, as it portrays how caring and compassionate Hale actually is. When reading the text, I imagined Reverend Hale as a somewhat older man, however, this changed after viewing the film version of The Crucible (Hytner, 1996) in which Hale is portrayed as quite a young man. This depiction of Hale altered my view of him as a character again, resulting in the gain of my respect and sympathy for him.

Likewise, perhaps the most troubling aspect of this play for me is the disturbingly corrupt government of Salem, run by Deputy Governor Danforth. I will admit that I have never in my life hated a character as much as I did Danforth for his extreme stupidity and ignorance. I was angered so intensely by Salem’s theocratic judicial system, due to the fact that I live in the 21st century, in a developed country where religion has no influence over our judicial system. For that reason it was almost incomprehensible for me to think that the system could actually have been run in that way.

Furthermore, as I have grown up with a very minimal religious background, I found it extremely hard to relate to the characters in the play, most of whom based all of their decisions and actions on their religious beliefs. It horrified me that innocent characters such as Rebecca Nurse and John Proctor would rather die with an untarnished soul than lie to save their lives. I do admire the value of staying true to oneself that these characters obviously possess, but I believe that in the unlikely event that I would be found in the same situation, I would lie and confess without a doubt, as I do not possess their belief that dishonesty is worse than death.

Moreover, I am currently in an English Extension class made up of eight girls, including myself, and although we all come from different backgrounds and we have all had different life experiences, in general our social backgrounds are fundamentally similar. We have similar interests, we take part in many common discourses and we have all grown up during the same time period. I believe that for these reasons, we all had very similar and parallel reactions to the play, such as our views of Abigail and John Proctor and how they changed, as well as, our responses to unjustness of the play in general. Although some of us have interpreted aspects of The Crucible in different ways, in general we have all come up with similar readings.

Part Two: The Defence

It is clear in my review of The Crucible that I play a crucial role in the meaning-making process and thus I have chosen to deploy a predominantly reader-centred approach to my analysis of this play. Reader-centred approaches first came to prominence in reaction against the text-centred approaches during the 1960s and 70s. It began as some theorists started to see meaning no longer as being fixed, but as being produced by the reader of the text. This approach is very useful as it helps to illustrate how a particular person reads and responds to a text and why. Significant literary critics such as, Stanley Fish, David Bleich, Hans Robert Jauss, Wolfgang Iser and particularly Louise Rosenblatt and Richard Beach share a belief of the importance of the reader in the meaning-making process. Contemporary reader-centred approaches recognise the cultural experiences, beliefs, values and social backgrounds possessed by readers and how these may affect how each person makes meaning of a text. In 1993, literary theorist Richard Beach wrote a book about reader-response theory, in which he identified five perspectives that allow the reader to help make meaning of a text. These include the textual, experiential, psychological, social and cultural perspectives and all assisted me to explain my meaning-making process.

Firstly, Beach’s textual perspective “illuminates the reader’s knowledge of particular text conventions” (Beach, 1993, p.17) such as; their past experiences with literature. As I had not read any works by Arthur Miller prior to reading The Crucible, and “apart from reading Shakespeare, I had never been exposed to reading in the playwright form,” I had a very broad version of what prominent literary theorist Hans Robert Jauss calls the “Horizon of Expectations” (Jauss as cited in Makaryk, 1993, p.382). However, after I began reading the play and again after viewing the film version, my “Horizon of Expectations” changed. For example, my view and opinions of characters such as Abigail, John Proctor, and Reverend Hale were altered. This sentiment can be explained by what Jauss argues as the reconstruction of the “Horizons of Expectations”, which emphasises the difference between previous and present expectations (Jauss as cited in Clarke, 1967). This can be illustrated in my reading, as at the start of the play “before the Abigail’s true personality was revealed; I thought that I was going to like her” nevertheless, after reading a bit further into the play, my expectation of her character completely changed and “my positive opinion of Abigail did not even last to the end of Act One.”

Following this, Beach’s experiential perspective outlines the modes of personal experience such as, the reader’s ability to form assumptions and fill gaps in the text. “Experiential theorists focus on the nature of readers’ engagement and experiences with texts” (Beach, 1993, p.17) such as, the ways in which readers identify with characters. This perspective is evident in my reading as “I was able to assume the sexual nature of Proctor and Abigail’s relationship” and can be further explained by prominent literary theorist Wolfgang Iser and his concept of determinate and indeterminate meanings, as well as, his argument that the reader is an active maker of meaning. Indeterminate meaning refers to the gaps that occur in texts which allow readers to create their own interpretations (Iser as cited in Tyson, 2006, p.174).

Similarly, my identification with certain characters in the play also falls under the experiential perspective. In 1969, prominent literary theorist Louise Rosenblatt created “Transactional theory”, a reader-response theory that analyses the transaction between the text and reader. Rosenblatt (as cited by Tyson, 2006, p.173) states, “As we read a text, it acts as a stimulus to which we respond in our own personal way. Feelings, associations, and memories occur as we read, and these responses influence the way in which we make sense of the text.” In order for this transaction to occur, the approach to the text must be in what Rosenblatt refers to as, the aesthetic mode of reading, rather than the efferent mode. When one reads in an efferent manner, they are only focused on the information contained within the text, whereas, when reading aesthetically, they “experience a personal relationship with the text that focuses their attention on the emotional subtleties of its language” (Rosenblatt as cited in Tyson, 2006, p.174). As stated in my reading, “I found myself sympathizing with the character Abigail Williams. She is a young teenage girl, in love, and I felt myself trying to relate to her and how she may be feeling,” I was able to experience these feelings as I was reading aesthetically opposed to reading in an efferent manner.

Furthermore, Beach’s psychological perspective covers the different modes of psychological experience, with “psychological theorists focusing on the reader’s cognitive and subconscious processes” (Beach, 1993, p.17). David Bleich, a leading literary theorist for the subjective reader-response theory argues that, “the perception and composition of literary meaning is entirely a function of the reader’s personality and their psychological and social background” (Bleich as cited in Tyson, 2006, p.178). His assumption helps to explain my reasons for reacting strongly to certain characters and events in The Crucible. For example, my reasons for first wanting to sympathise with Abigail as a character can be explained as she is a young girl close to my age, so I felt that I would easily be able to connect with her. This theory can also illustrate why “my immediate reaction was to make excuses for Abigail, when she first started to act inappropriately.” As I had gained a connection with her, my first reaction was to protect her and deny her wrong doings. However, it didn’t take long for me to realise what a horrible person she was, and lose all my connection with her character.

In addition to this, Beach’s social perspective focuses on the “influence of social context on the reader” (Beach, 1993, p.17). Prominent literary theorist Stanley Fish created what is known as an interpretive community. He refers to these communities as “groups of readers with shared reading strategies, values and assumptions” (Fish, 1980). “They may belong to similar discourses and for this reason they form similar meanings” (Fish, 1980). In my reading, I stated that my “English Extension class is made up of eight girls including myself, and although we all come from different backgrounds and we have all had different life experiences, in general our social backgrounds are all fundamentally similar.” This theory can be used to explain why members of my English Extension class shared a generally similar reading of The Crucible.

Finally, Beach’s cultural perspective explores the reader’s “cultural identities and how their cultural backgrounds affect how they make meaning” (Beach, 1993, p.17). Beach argues that a person’s cultural background equips them with a set of values, beliefs and practices that they bring to a text. He states, “Readers act out these cultural practices through their responses in ways that define their cultural identity” (Beach, 1993, p.141). Personally, I was unable to connect with the religious aspect of the play, as I was not brought up in a religious community and have not experienced or been largely exposed to that cultural practice (Beach, 1993, p.140). This is evident in my reading when I state, “I have grown up with a very minimal religious background”, therefore “I found it extremely hard to relate with the characters in the play, most of whom based all of their decisions and actions on their religious beliefs.” This perspective can also be used to illustrate why it was “incomprehensible for me” to believe that the judicial system in Salem was influenced by religion.

It can be concluded from an exploration of reader-centred approaches and the various aspects of reader-response theory, used to explore my reading process, that as a reader, I am highly influential in the meaning-making process of The Crucible. Reading this play gave me the opportunity to explore these complex theories myself, and with the help of the ideas of many intelligent literary theorists, I was able to explain the ways and reasons for which I created meaning from the text. Whilst I found Beach’s five reader-response perspectives extremely helpful in breaking down my different reasons for producing my meaning of The Crucible, other theorists were also extremely helpful to further elaborate on these ideas. Theorists Rosenblatt, Jauss, Iser and Bleich assisted in giving me a more comprehensive understanding of the textual, experiential and psychological explanations as to why I created the meaning that I did, as well as Fish, who helped me determine that I am part of an interpretive community. In particular, Rosenblatt’s transactional theory gave me a very thorough understanding of the strong connection between the reader and the text and emphasised the strong correlation between a reader’s personal experiences and background, and the way in which they create meaning.

Bibliography

Beach, R. (1993). A Teacher’s Introduction to Reader-Response Theories. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teacher’s English.

Bigsby, C. (1995). An Introduction to The Crucible. New York: Penguin Group.

Clark, R. L. W. (1967). Hans-Robert Jauss “Literary History As A Challenge To
Literary Theory”. Retrieved March 7, 2014, from http://www.rlwclarke.net/courses/LITS3303/2009-2010/11BJauss,LiteraryHistoryasaChallengetoLiteraryTheory.pdf.

Fish, S. (1980). Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive
Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Hytner, N. (1996). The Crucible; Film Version. USA: 20th Century Fox.

Makaryk, I.R. (1993). Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Literary Theory Approaches,
Scholars, Terms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.

Seldon, R., Widdowson, P., & Brooker, P. (2005). A Readers Guide To
Contemporary Literary Theory. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Tyson, L. (2006). Critical Theory Today; A User-Friendly Guide. New York:
Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.