Okay, so all sorts of historical details are altered for the sake of character drama, but so what? It does not change the fact that this is one heck of a great play that offers it all: romance, betrayal, psychology, murder, and more, all set in a sleepy little Puritan town obsessed with witches that has become the victim of the "games" of a few young girls.

While I would hardly recommend it to someone going for deep facts of the Salem Witch Trials, this still draws on historical characters and does an excellent job of portraying them as real people. You feel for them, even the ones you hate.

"The Crucible" is well-named as the pot that heats everything up, and Miller takes minor events and shows how they become the tragedy that was the witch trials.

This is an incredibly powerful and important story that teaches messages as the drama entertains.

The Crucible by Arthur Miller is a great book to read with a mother-daughter book club. It provides an outlet to talk about issues the girls are covering in school, and to find out about how their perspectives differ from those of their moms. The issues of witchcraft and socially sanctioned violence against a targeted group seem eerily relevant to some of the things going on in our world today. This book challenged all of us to think about the most important things in our lives and what we're willing to sacrifice to achieve a higher cause.

Daughter needed it for a project for an accelerated class. It came in time and she was able to complete her assignments with a new book.

On my walk through the LoA edition of Arthur Miller plays I bypass The Enemy of the People, the Ibsen adaptation, which I think is a waste of everyone's time, and go straight to the Crucible, which I had never read, nor watched on stage or screen. Very odd. It is a truly gripping piece of modern classic stage writing.
Of course AM needed to educate us always, so this story is not just a story about the witch trials of Salem, when perfectly harmless people, including some citizens of standing in the community, got identified as witches and hanged for it. (Which somehow looks like progress over the burnings in Europe.)
No, this is generally about fundamentalism and totalitarianism and theocracy, and more specifically about McCarthy and I wouldn't be surprised if it was also about the Ayatollah Khomeini, whatever you may say regarding anachronisms, and the Taliban. Let's not forget the Cultural Revolution of China.
If I seem to mock the play just a little bit, I haven't made up my mind yet, not quite. There is something strangely wrong in the tone of the dialogues. Can't quite nail it. Anachronistic for sure; is that all? Have to think about it.
The message that AM put into his morality tale is that power and property interests are behind the maddest manifestations of disinterestedness and righteousness. That was sure true in the other historical witch hunts that we know about. Whether it is an accurate reflection of the Salem case, I do not know. (I will definitely look for the DVD and give DDL a chance for redemption in my eyes.)

I really enjoyed reading this classic tale. I found it interesting from an historical and literary point of view. It forces you to think about very real moral dilemmas, like what you might or might not give your life for.

Miller's Crucible is worth reading because of its valuable lessons and interesting plot. The story is suspenseful up until the last moment and is especially intriguing as it is set in the midst of an actual historical event. Exploring the Salem witch trials, Miller recreates the scenario in a vivid way and ponders the conflicts that led to the witch hunt.

Applying this historical event to the McCarthyism of his era, he provides insight upon the Red Scare. Miller chose to use the witch hunts because of the many parallels between it and the Red Scare. Miller saw the strongest resemblance between the procedures of the trials held during the two periods of hysteria. Another area where Miller created more parallels was in the ambiguous evidences used to accuse a person. Because the social events of the time and the witch trials were so alike, Miller was able to use "The Crucible" as a way to express his thoughts of the era.

Also, Miller's style is easy to read and comprehend as he allows the character to speak in a modern fashion.

The Crucible is gives much insight on the Salem witch trials, the Red Scare, and modern events. This play is engaging and one that can be finished in a matter of hours.

Miller's "Crucible" amazingly parallels the McCarthyism era and provides a frightful yet realistic account of the possibilities caused by human desires. Its short length combined with its easy-to-understand language allows the readers to become fully absorbed in the plot.
During the period of anti-communism, suspicions were placed among all types of people, ranging from outcasts of society to the most-trusted educators. The hysteria of the Red Scare spread rapidly through the belief of a necessary social conformity. Despite questionable evidence combined with exaggerated threats, suspicions were often deemed credible in a court of law. Consequently, once suspected, few individuals were able to completely clear their reputation. As with the witches accused, suspected Communists were given the chance to escape punishment through confession and identification of other Red Sympathizers. This gradually led to false accusations of others to save oneself, resulting in the condemning of many innocent individuals. Paralleling the Salem Witch Trials to the persecutions of the McCarthyism era, Miller emphasizes the ability of mass hysteria to overpower the apparent irrationality of the Red Scare.
Miller's outstanding use of historical context further emphasized the power of human nature to cause the spread of mass hysteria. When looking at the "Crucible" as a play, it seems too surreal and frightening to be true. Any reader could easily mock the people of the community for being naïve and hanging nonexistent witches. However, the scary irony that Miller uses is the fact that the whole scenario has happened before in history, numerous times. Not only did the settlers of Massachusetts hang supposed "witches", but also people in the twentieth century have allowed mass hysteria to spread unjustifiably.
"The Crucible" is an exciting play that fully grasps the attention of its readers. It is not only an entertaining book for any occasion, but is also a meaningful retelling of a tragedy of human nature.

When is lying justifiable? Is it good in certain situations but bad in others? The Bible explicitly says, "Thou shall not lie," but most nowadays choose to neglect that rule and seek our own good, whether it be by telling the truth or by lying. Arthur Miller's The Crucible is memorable in that it illustrates the malicious extent of a person's lie. Miller recounts a person's desire to destroy one another by using false accusations to highlight the destructive result of humanity's egoistic nature.

A look at the period in which the book takes place is crucial in understanding the immorality behind the punishments those accused of witchcraft received. Set in the early 17th century America, the enticing play quickly build up climax as the characters struggle to fit in their superficial society of the Puritans. Those latter strongly believed that any contact with evil spirits merits death. The presence of a sinner in the midst of the community would mean danger and melancholy to all. Therefore, it was crucial to spot the guilty and remove him/her.

Since the firm Puritan belief of the seventeenth century upheld witchcraft as a direct contact with devils, and if not Lucifer himself, the accusations of Abigail and her associates cause great hysteria in the calm city of Salem. By falsely accusing others of being involved in witchcraft, Abigail succeeds in fooling the deputy who then orders many venerable citizens to burn at the stake.

It is also interesting to realize that Miller passed through a period that exactly parallels that found in his play. Driven by the impulsive McCarthyism ideology of his era, Miller parallels the anti-Communist fervor of the 1950's with the false accusations of the Salem Witch trials of the 1690's in order to highlight the outlandish prejudice of both eras.

Senator John McCarthy eliminates Communist compellers from the United States by ensuring that all those partaking of the Communistic party be severely punished. As in the case with the Salem Witch Trials, people in the 1950's accused others of Communistic involvement in order to escape their awaited severe punishments.

In both eras, the policy of encouraging others to confess resulted in great hysteria and settled long-held vendettas. In the 1950's, those who refused to confess were forever blacklisted, and in the 1690's, they were condemned and hanged. In both eras, it is evident that the envy of the miserable toward the happy is what caused many people to sell others.

Overall, the book is enticing and holds many moral lessons that the reader must deduce after seeing the consequences of the characters' actions. If you want to discover some history as well as enjoy a book where you will be able to see yourself, then I strongly recommend this play for you.

This short play dives deep into the minds of those who participated in the Salem Witch Trials during the 1600's. Miller focuses entirely on human emotions as he attempts to discover the real reason for these ridiculous witch accusations. "The Crucible" is intriguing and mind-bottling as readers realize the severity of the trials. Many people's lives were changed and it leaves one to question: "Why didn't anyone verify the claims?" The play centers around a man named John Proctor and his relationship with the young Abigail Williams. John commits adultery, cheating on his wife Elizabeth with Abigail. In the Puritan society, adultery is a major sin in which the individual would face a severe punishment if convicted. When Proctor tells Abigail he does not love her, she takes revenge by accusing Elizabeth of doing witchcraft. The claims are absurd, yet not a single person in the town attempts to clear Elizabeth's name. Abigail uses her manipulative powers to get the other girls in on her plan. The play shows that both fear and revenge can cause people to do horrible things. The townspeople are involved in this "witch hunt" and add to society's ignorance. They fail to challenge authority even though they know what is right. I found this book engaging as I tried to fathom the events that occurred in Salem, Massachusetts. Miller does an excellent job of trying to understand why this happened. I learned that Puritan society was weak and that many individuals feared speaking out against authority. The entire Puritan society was based on control. By instilling fear in people, the Puritan leaders could maintain leadership over the rest of them. This is a great read if you want to try to understand history and apply it to our world today.

Exciting and eventful, The Crucible by Arthur Miller is a joy to read. Arthur Miller succeeds in bringing the thrill of each event in the play. Filled with wonderful imagery and actions, The Crucible remains one of my favorite plays.

Miller is able to create masterful scenes through the dialogue of the characters. He can set the tone and mood of the setting through how the characters talk. This allows readers to actually envision the setting and feel as if they too are part of the play.

The characters are wonderful in that they are not one-dimensional, and they appear very real. Each character feels very human- as if the reader has already met the character before. It is interesting to see each character have a different persona and different motives, which leads to an interesting and complex plot. Because each character has a different motive, it makes the plot much more interesting as there are also added subplots which entice the reader to know more about each individual character.

The events that occur in the play contribute greatly to the overall excitement of the story. The accusations are extremely vivid, so readers can feel the fear and the hysteria the town itself is feeling. They appeal to the senses as readers begin to feel engaged in the story.

If you want to read a short, engaging play, The Crucible is the way to go.

Written in the early 1950s, Miller's literary work was meant to be a parallel to the "Red Scare". He focuses on the 17th century witch trials in Salem where its citizens out of hysteria participate in wild witch hunts, acts that killed numerous innocent civilians.

His story focuses on John Proctor, a relatively honest and good man who had an affair once with his wife's helper. Out of this lust, he initiates the start of the mass hysteria because Abigail, the helper, has fallen in love with him and will stop at nothing to make him love her, even killing his current wife. Her jealous rampage snowballs into a full blown mass hysteria where she implants ideas of the presence of witchcraft into the minds of the small town's citizens and brings to trial many people, including his wife. Throughout the entire story, Proctor knows her true intentions and we see the inner struggle within himself: To either to keep his good name and let his wife die, or confess his adulterating sins and besmirch his good reputation that he holds dear.

Throughout the entire story, the reader is engulfed within Miller's storytelling, his writing style and sentence structure whirling us into the tense and upbeat atmosphere of those times. With his masterful use of short and repetitive sentence structures, he is able to make them feel this tenseness. With this kind of writing style, it makes The Crucible one quick and satisfying read.

Overall, I found The Crucible to be a fairly good book with an interesting plot and a classical heroic ending. I especially liked the fallen hero archetype that redeems himself in the end after struggling with his inner mind.

Although I was slightly perturbed at the fact that the author would play around with the historical facts, in order to make it more realistic, I feel that the story would have been of greater impact had he left the original details within, but other than that, this book is worth the time and money spent!

A powerful and exciting rollercoaster is what this play will bring. Its plot, its characters are all engaging and interesting to read. In The Crucible, Arthur Miller has written a book that not only entertains but forces the reader to question the integrity of human beings at its instance of greatest power and weakness.

Set in the late 1600s, The Crucible depicts the horrendous events of the Salem Witch Trials. Even before reading the book, the subject captures the interest of many as images of the mysterious and mystical come to life. As a play, this story already entertains its readers but as a masterfully written piece of literature, this play makes it all the more worthwhile to read. With the backdrop of the Red Scare as the inspiration for this play, Miller plays with the ideas of jealousy, vengeance, and radicalism against the infamous Salem Witch trials to show how quickly problems can escalate out of hand. The plot of the play centers on the couple of John Proctor and his wife, Elizabeth, who are caught up in the middle of a city-wide scandal to rid the town of "witches." The problem begins when the town's reverend finds his daughter and a few other girls dancing out in the woods during the dead of night. Alerted, he requests the help of Rev. Hale, an expert in supernatural affairs. Soon the girls are accused of being witches and are forced to name others. Acting in the worst of human character, they indict those they hate and the conflict flares up and consumes the entire town.

The power and brilliance of this plays stems not from its ability to entertain but from the reader's ability to connect with the characters. Miller has created characters that seem like common people caught up in a malicious scandal. We all erupt in fury as Abigail escapes unpunished for her crime; we cringe as Mary Warren betrays Proctor and we weep as John Proctor is executed for a crime he did not commit. Within the play, Proctor is the only beacon of righteousness that, for his honor and pride, would forfeit his life than lie. This powerful thought provoking event ends the play with a dramatic question lingering in the reader's mind: What would I have done in Proctor's shoes? Against the incessant cries of others to lie for his life, Proctor refuses and will rather die for his beliefs. The audience is dismayed that Abigail and the other girls are capable of such evil. With an impactful ending and solid ability to entertain, The Crucible will leave readers grasping for more.

With its suspenseful plot, melodramatic characters, and excessively strict setting, Arthur Miller's The Crucible expertly captures the helplessness of the wrongfully-accused.

The Crucible follows the story of a stubborn cynic in the midst of his society's chaos and paranoia. Not particularly moral, for he had committed adultery, John Proctor is the typical man struggling with his beliefs that are not accepted in his community. His different thoughts violate the society's unsaid policy of conformity, rendering him the perfect character to play out the pitiful hardships of a heretic. Since he neither entirely good nor completely evil, Proctor's character represents the common man, and the average reader can relate to his thoughts about society. Because of this, readers are more able to sympathize with Proctor, drawing the reader more into the book's plot as it goes on. Because of this, the reader eventually faces the same gnawing conflict Proctor faces in the end. While yielding to his society's chaotic witch-hunting disturbs his conscience, holding fast to his beliefs guarantees death. Throughout the play, Proctor battles it out with his pride when he is forced to choose between his life and his conscience. Instead of just a story of trials, The Crucible represents a moral test -is being honest worth dying for? The reader contemplates this inevitable question as he flips faster and faster (and his heart beats faster and faster!) to reveal the fatal end - his ethics win, and Proctor hangs dead.

Only by placing his story in a strict community would Miller be able to illustrate the overwhelmingly contagious fear of evil -and he did just that. Prior to the introduction of John Proctor's character, the story begins with a young girl's false accusation of another of witchcraft in Salem, a Puritan settlement. The idea of the Devil's work, witchcraft, in their own pious community vastly alarms its citizens. Immediately, this fear spreads like an uncontrollable wildfire in a million acre forest. With this paranoia and fear leading to chaos, which eventually causes its tragic finale, The Crucible disapproves of the Puritan society's intolerance of dissent, almost mocking its gullibility and piety.

Also, characters developed in the play symbolize different aspects of the human nature. Abigail, the girl who initiates these accusations, does so because of her vengeful stubborn nature -a perfect representation of the play's antagonist. Her anger and confusion towards her banishment from Proctor's house motivates her revenge. Goody Proctor, the symbol of moral goodness, is, of course, John Proctor's wife -a daily painful reminder of his past sins. Throughout the play, she reflects a self-less personality, creating a standard for her husband to achieve. These characters help further shape John Proctor's dilemma at the end.

As for context, Miller compares these Salem witch-trials depicted in the play to the 1950s Red Scare in the United States. As the witch-trials begin with one accusation, so does the Red Scare. The piety and overwhelming fear in the Devil in the community allows the witch-hunt to continue throughout the Puritan settlement. Paralleling this fear, the paranoia of Communism in the steadfast Democratic-Republican United States allows the trials and accusations to pervade throughout America.

As readers, we see the absurdity of these Salem witch-trials. With Miller's amazing suspenseful style, we ourselves feel helpless as well because we cannot intervene with the story. Instead, we could only sit back and watch as the ridiculous fear swells out of control within the community. By being able to relate his protagonist to the reader and recreating this very helplessness in the reader as well, Miller thoroughly explores the desperation of the wrongfully accused. Yet, Miller also comments on the ridiculous period of the Red Scare, when people allowed the accusations to get out of hand. This fantastic, discreet but not imperceptible, parallelism between the Salem witch-trials and the Red Scare period adds a historical flair.

The Crucible is an exciting and engaging play, holding suspense until the very satisfying end. Like a Shakespeare play, The Crucible makes a reader fully experience from the initial complications to the final catharsis.

Does The Crucible pass the test?
When Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, America was going through its heavy stages of McCarthyism. Threats and accusations were everywhere, and nobody was safe from the possibility of being called a communist. Even Miller himself was accused of Communism. Miller wrote this play about a similar situation to McCarthyism, but with the consequences for being accused being a lot more severe. The engaging tale is very cleverly written, describes actual events, and is about the Salem Witch Trials. The book is excellent, and should definitely be read in all high school English classes.
The Crucible is an excellent piece of writing. It digs deep into human character, and exposes flaws in human nature. Some flaws explored were greed and hysteria. Greed was addressed when the townspeople began to cry witch on neighbors for which they had grudges. The hysteria that followed came when those accusations were taken seriously, and the accused were arrested. Here, Miller takes obsession to a whole new level. He makes the townspeople sentence death onto each other just so they could take their neighbors' land. Although the reader obviously knows that the accusations are fake and ridiculous, Miller has Hale and the judges give reasonable arguments for the accusations. They base the fact that witches exist on the Bible saying that they do(the Bible was law). In order to prove the accused blameworthy, they do things like catch them in the act of lying. They then claim that lying in court proved the accused guilty, no matter what the lies were about. The fact that we see points of view from all points in this story is what makes this a truly good read.
This play is based, and mostly even consists of actual events. The Salem Witch hunts really did occur in America in the 1690's, and people such as John Proctor, Abigail Williams, and Elizabeth Proctor really did exist. Miller did change some of the details, such as the ages of John Proctor and Abigail(they were actually 60 and 11, respectively), but that was just to strengthen the plot with a love affaire(which was also made up). He also made a few other small changes such as the wage of Betty Parris, and nonel. These changes were not significant enough to make the play be considered historical fiction, and the history was presented in an interesting way, unlike most pieces on history that I have read.
What makes The Crucible so unique is how even though it takes place far in the past, its events are really parallel to the present. After reading this, we think about present-day witch-hunts, such as McCarthyism and sexual abuse cases. In The Crucible, people falsely accused others of something that we today would not find a crime. The accused often had their lives ruined. McCarthyism is the term describing a period of intense anti-Communist suspicion in the United States that lasted roughly from the late 1940's to the late 1950's. During it, Joesph McCarthy accused hundreds of Americans of being Communists. This caused humiliation and often a loss of jobs for very many of the accused. Like with The Crucible, we would not find this accusation to be a major crime today. Lastly, this makes us think about court cases where children accuse adults, often doctors, of sexually harassing them. The children are seen as fragile and innocent, so their accusations are often taken seriously, with serious punishment done to the accused adults. Unfortunately, as in the case of the Salem Witch Trials, the children are not always telling the truth. All too often, they are told by their parents to lie to the court about being molested. Since the court typically sees the children as innocent, they often overlook this paramount fact, which results in the lives of the adults ruined.
In conclusion, my opinion is that The Crucible most definitely "passes the test", and should be read by generations of English students to come.

Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", a four act play about the Salem witch trials in 1692, is a wonderful drama that speaks about intolerance and authoritarian power in society.

The heart of the play is not about the accusations of witchcraft, but about the conditions that led to the accusations and how quickly people will take advantage of one another during hysteria. It is a historical reminder (and a warning) that people died because of hysterical fanaticism in an authoritarian culture. Miller takes this important lesson in history, adds words to the historic figures, and makes a darn good fictional drama depicting their roles in this historic event. The action inside the court room is beautifully constructed and explores the idea of injustices being perpetuated in a sanctuary designed to create justice.

Miller does a great job creating scenes that evoke outrage and indignation while keeping the characters real and human. John Procter is not be looked upon as the "hero" or "victim" because of his past indiscretions and ignorance, just as Abigail Williams is not to be looked upon as the "villain" because her actions are perpetuated by a persecuted youth who is suddenly granted power by the courts. The characters are an interesting mix of people caught-up in a blizzard of conditions that were just right to give innuendos truth and superstitions law.

I found the play very enjoyable and entertaining even without all the parallels to what was happening in the 1950's when it was written.

Along with Death of a Salesman, The Crucible is deservedly known as one of the greatest American plays of all time.

This tragic and thought provoking story follows the time period of the Salem Witch trials and the victims who were wrongly accused. "The Crucible" preaches for justice, truth and loyalty. When the Proctor's wife, and later on the Proctor himself, are unfortunately called under trail for relations with the devil, the pair suffers through the ordeals of asking for forgiveness of their sins or dying with pride as they know they are innocent. As they are being tried in court, Mary is the sole person who can testify if the allegations against them are true or not. In the beginning, she stayed loyal to the truth despite the pressures from society to condemn them. Yet eventually Mary breaks under the pressure of her peers and agrees that the pair is indeed guilty of their accusations, although they are innocent. She clearly gives in because of the fear she had of her own life, worrying if others would become suspicious of her. The proctor eventually refuses to repent for something he does not do, but is he still eventually hanged for his crime? Read this story to find out! As you read, benefit from it's parallels to the struggles in our society today, where the justice systems gets overly involved in the moral investments and rumors of the outside world. This book is the perfect historical account to one of the most despicable times in history, it preaches loyalty to the truth even in the worst of times.

Written in 1953, as American anti-Communist paranoia was reaching its bitter peak, The Crucible is a masterpiece of dark satire and sustained drama. The play relates the real-life tale of the legendary Salem Witch Trials, in which dozens of innocent peopple were executed simply because they were suspected of making a pact with the Devil. Miller uses actual participants and events from the Trials to reveal the astounding brutality and unchecked insanity behind the events at Salem. As the story unfolds, it exposes the corrosive effects of legalized brutality and mass hysteria. The result is a searing indictment of McCarthyism and socially-sanctioned paranoia that is still (and I say this at the risk of revelaing my own political oppinons) still frighteningly relevant today.

But look at The Crucible as a mere story, and you've still got a masterpiece. At the heart of the play lie some of the finest characters ever devised- Miller breathes life into the town of Salem, filling it with Puritanic monsters, estranged outcasts, misunderstood saints, cynical commedians, and stern authoritarians. The bitter, twisted Abigail Williams makes for one of the most infuriating and complex antagonists of all time- she's a deviously smart, manipulative sociopath who simply refuses not to get under your skin. Best of all, there's John Proctor, himself a masterpiece of 20th century fiction- here, Miller has crafted a truly complex man, simultaneously humble and fiercly indeoendent, troubled by both a strong morality and a dark, bitter past. The drama of the play arises as much from watching Proctor struggle against his darker side as it does from the events at hand. As the story hurtles from an ominous, atmospheric build, through a series of gut-wrenching plot twists, and onwards to its hideously gorgeous closing moments, Miller tugs at your heartstrings and exposes you to humanity at its most tragically flawed. In short, the Crucible is an absolute masterpiece of enraged social commentary and apocalyptic human drama. If you care at all about American literature, read it!

This play by Arthur Miller is definitely worth reading, partly because of its engaging storyline and also for its succinctness. This play can pretty much be a model for what play should really be like. It has complex characters that at times both amuse and scare us, a straightforward storyline that is not without it's twists and turns, and most importantly, a fascinating topic that is in relation to historical context.

The plot revolves around the historic Salem Witch Hunt in Salem, Massachusets. A young woman named Abigail is among the others who are accused to performing witchcraft and for enthralling ordinary civilians. When they are finally proven guilty, they stand before court, but not before Abigail gains power in the justice and randomly convicts innocent women to be the "real" witches. The hyseria and corruption surrounding the court and Salem society as a whole will never be the same, as the innocent are convincted while the guilty are let go. Although fiction, this play does relate immensely to historical times, in which women indeed were sentenced to death during the trials for no reason and were never proven guilty. The story is written with eloquence and wit, with the occasional tad bit of humor and irony in the mix. The best part? The language is easy to understand, for us mere mortals at least.

Like many others, Elia Kazan flirted with the American Communist party in the 1930s; again like many others he was soon disgusted by the vicious totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and left the party. In the 1940s Kazan emerged as a major director, creating such films as GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT for the screen and staging playwright Arthur Miller's landmark dramas ALL MY SONS and DEATH OF A SALESMAN--but in the early 1950s his former affiliation with the American Communist Party came back to haunt him the form of the House Unamerican Activities Committee.

In the wake of World War II the American goverment began to fear that Soviet agents had infiltrated the country and were working for the overthow of American democracy. The film industry became a hotspot of investigation, with conservatives claiming that motion pictures were being used to popularize communist thought. Unfortunately, the House Unamerican Activities Committee was less interested in getting to the truth of the matter than in maintaining political power: American citizens were hauled before the committee; attacked, often for no reason; and found their careers and lives destroyed as a result. But there was a way around this. If you confessed you had been a communist (whether you had been or not), if you recanted your former beliefs (whether you had held them or not), and if you named names of others involved in the party (whether they had been or not)--you could survive. And when Kazan was called before the committee in 1952 that is precisely what he did.

Arthur Miller was so outraged by Kazan's behavior that he terminated both their longstanding friendship and highly successful working relationship; although they would eventually resume a working relationship, they had no contact for more than a decade. He also wrote a play about the situation: THE CRUCIBLE.

On the surface, THE CRUCIBLE is a retelling of the infamous Salem witch trials of 1692. The power-hungry Rev. Parrish has met with resistance in the town, and when his daughter Betty, his ward Abigail, and several other teenage girls are found dancing in the wood the community fears the worst: witchcraft. In order to protect himself, Parrish calls in Rev. Hale, an expert in such matters. In order to protect themselves, the girls confess--and then begin to name names of "other witches." In order to placate the court, those named must name others in turn, and the lies and hysteria turn into a cycle of power-grabs and revenge.

Among those named as a witch is Elizabeth Proctor, wife of John Proctor--a man who had a sordid affair with Abigail, who now sees the opportunity to get rid of Elizabeth via hanging and force Proctor into marriage. In an effort to protect his wife, Proctor goes before the court and denounces Abigail, but Abigail now turns on him as well, accusing him of being a witch. He is arrested and sentenced to hang. Rev. Hale, now aware of the fraud involved, begs Proctor to confess, even though the confession will be a lie. Proctor refuses and pays for his integrity with his life.

In broad historical outline, Miller's tale of the witch trials is quite accurate; he does, however, take considerable license with individual characters and relationships. Whatever the case, the result is a uniquely powerful play, not only as a story pure and simple but on a deeper level in its warning against the communist witch hunt of the 1950s--and any similar witch hunt, regardless of nature, which relies on a process created by those with ulterior motives and uses as evidence testimony extracted by fear of reprecussion. While most consider DEATH OF A SALESMAN Miller's finest play, I have always given that title to THE CRUCIBLE; unlike SALESMAN, which has a dated quality, THE CRUCIBLE has a timeless quality, remarkable in intensity, thought-provoking in subtext in ways which most plays are not. Strongly recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

This book is truly a quick read, because it's really not long, and plays tend to be a quick read. I like the format, because it brings out each individual character, and puts each one on the spot, so I can easily delineate each character's tone as they conversed.
Described as a timeless classic, The Crucible provides everlasting insights that are not just clichéd themes, but perceptive recurring themes that are demonstrated through mankind's idiosyncrasies. This book unearths essential themes that will stay in the history of mankind, due to its significance and accuracy towards human flaws. The fact that humans would selfishly perform acts of self interest at the expense of others in the midst of fear and hysteria has been repeated throughout history and will continue to be one of many human's shortcomings.
I liked how the book reflects what happened in reality. Mainly referring to the Salem witch trials and the Red Scare, The Crucible asserts that opportunistic people, who perform self-interest, immoral acts that saves their lives at the expense of others' is essentially wrong and selfish. Much like Abigail, many people from Salem have intentionally accused the innocence for witchcraft to sway the attention and blame, when in actuality, they are blameworthy.
At the peak of the Red Scare, many people, in hopes of being vindicated for wrongdoing, attacked innocent reputation, pretending to serve the community by finding the menaces, who in this case are the communists, of society, while, ironically, the accuser is actually the culprit. Because everyone was afraid of communists, some used that notion to their advantage to lock people, who had done wrong to them, a tactic that is wrong and immoral.
Since I have read Othello, I noticed a parallel between it and this book. That humans would selfishly perform acts of self interest at the expense of others in the midst of fear and hysteria is a theme, around which The Crucible revolves; this very theme parallels to that of Othello by Shakespeare, because both Abigail and Iago perform culpable actions just to find a scapegoat, who is supposed absorbs all the blame.
In The Crucible, Abigail understands her options, and the only way to sway all the attention that is imposed on her originally is to find a scapegoat, who eventually becomes John Proctor, who upholds a reputation and refuses to reveal his scandalous relationship with Abigail. Because Abigail is accused of witchcraft, the only way to survive is to use Proctor as a scapegoat, because she is certain that he will not refute that accusation, unless he unveils his adultery, which he avoids to keep his reputation clean. Abigail's opportunistic nature essentially saves her, but ultimately kills Proctor.
I did not really like the characters per say, but I really was intrigued by the fact that people do blame other people just so they could be vindicated. I look around myself, and I do see this as a universal theme.

The Crucible is a great book. Since it is a play, the book is relatively short. I believe that most readers can finish this book peacefully in an afternoon. The plot revolves around the historic events of the Salem Witch Hunt and how one person can start it all. This character, by the name of Abigail, is fiery and very cruel. The way she treats the people around her is astounding and reprimandable. I spent most of the time, trying to express my anger over her actions to John Proctor. The historic base of this novel provides a sense of interest to readers and the plot is quite rudimentary but exciting. It is exciting because of the hysteria and complicated values that run through this play. Though I am instructed not to spoil...I will not discuss the plot but rather the tone of the play in question. Because it is a play, the voice is perhaps unique to every individual reader. You have to read out the lines to live out the plot and characters. Overall, this book astounded me because it provided a ficticious swing over history and really sparked my anger over Abigail. Arthur Miller does a fantastic job doing this.

This was written to honestly give my opinions over this play.

Personally, I do not like plays at all, and I still do not; however, I do like the plot and ideas behind the Crucible. I was met with mixed feelings about this book because there are many good and bad things about this piece.
The fact that this was a play does hold some significance in my not liking the Crucible. Plays require much more energy to visualize and see. I often found myself reading out loud every line trying to figure out what was happening. Also, without text, there is nothing to praise about Arthur Miller's skill in writing. Although there is a character that serves the narrator function in this piece, I like reading character actions in sentences rather than in quotation marks. The book also lacks a sense of imagery. Being a play, Miller gives a few sentences to provide a brief location or background. Descriptions are straightforward and just bland.
The storyline itself is great. Arthur Miller skillfully criticizes the paranoia that results from unwarranted superstition. I just love the complexity of the plot, with people accusing each other through petty bitterness and hatred. The Crucible illustrates a society with no emotional control. I also found some of the irony humorous, chuckling at the mention of having the minister's daughter be accused a witch. I loved the poignant ending that taught me an important value of being truthful. The plot had substance, but I think that it would have been better as a novel.The Crucible will be sufficient for a quick afternoon read, but nothing more than that.

This book is first and foremost a test of morals.
Is it ok to kill other people if the evidence against them is not sound?
Is it ok to kill them at all?
How do you decide who will live and who will die?

These are the questions that make up the majority of this book.

The Crucible is set during the time of the Salem witch trials in Massachusetts in 1692. During that time, many women were hung under the assumption that they had dealings with the devil and had practiced witchcraft. In The Crucible, Arthur Miller depicts the constant struggle between the Lord and Satan. This universal theme is also seen in Steinbeck's East of Eden with a struggle between good and evil.

This has an allusion to the biblical story of the War in Heaven between Lucifer and God in order to steal God's throne. This biblical allusion summarizes the entire play in one sentence. People believed that women could be possessed by the devil and ordered to do witchcraft. If the women did this, they were turning their backs on God, as Lucifer did. After the war in heaven, Lucifer lost and was banished to Hell where his name became Satan. The people of Salem, Massachusetts believed that it was Satan, the devil, which inhabited women's souls. The play also symbolizes a struggle between good and evil, as does the war in heaven. The war was a struggle between God, good, and Lucifer, evil. Also, the characters in the play have to constantly decide whether they will be on Satan's side or on God's.


Put your own moral sense to test here.
Let you be the judge of who should live or die and see if you could do it.

As everything in society comes tumbling to the ground, who will be the people that are still sane and who will be the ones that betray their so called "loved ones"?

Arthur Miller's masterful play explores the consequences of greed, envy, vengeance, extremism, and hypocrisy run amok. It is set in Salem during the infamous witch trials, but could easily translate to other times in history (Robespierre's reign of terror during the French revolution, McCarthy's Communist hearings, etc.). Miller shows how the witch trials took flight and gathered speed and power until they nearly consumed the whole of Salem. He also shows how the officials in charge refused to hear evidence contrary to their purpose so as not to lose face publicly by standing down. Through the story of John and Elizabeth Proctor, a couple caught in the center of the firestorm, the tragedy of the trials is made abundantly clear. In a futile attempt to save his wife from the machinations of Abigail Williams (the young girl Proctor had had an affair with, and who kicks off the accusations with her friends to get Elizabeth Proctor out of the way so that she can be with John), Proctor fights the system by challenging the court to see the motives behind the accusations. His attempts to bring reason into madness are met with the insistence that if he is not with them, he is against them (which should sound eerily familiar to anyone with a television set). After Proctor himself has been accused of colluding with the Devil and sentenced to death the officials in charge become determined to use him to validate their holy terror. If Proctor, a popular and well-liked man in town, were to lie and give them a confession that he had conspired with Satan it would legitimize all of the hangings that went on in the public eye. Giving a false confession would save Proctor from hanging and allow him to live to see the birth of the child Elizabeth is carrying -- but can he go through with it? Miller's multilayered play is a classic for the ages -- a truly timeless work of drama that is every bit as relevant today as it was when it was first produced in 1953 (at the height of the McCarthy hearings), and which will most likely prove relevant in another fifty years as well. That is a sad statement for humanity, but a credit to Miller for his perceptive eye and his courage to capture it so eloquently. Perhaps with the example set forth in "The Crucible" we can learn from the past, and not be doomed to repeat it.

Just as 'High Noon' shows the courage of a man who refused to cut and run from great danger, 'The Crucible' is usually regarded as an allegory which attacks the 1950s intolerance of anti-communist zealots.

Perhaps it is much more. Liberals get a warm fizzy feeling over Miller's portrayal of fundamentalist religious persecution run amok; but, this limited acumen ignores the terrible "engine" of such persecution - - - the American adversarial judicial system.

The play portrays hapless victims accused of imaginary evils and then convicted by a judicial system based not on truth, justice or mercy but on the absolutes of guilt or innocence. No mitigation is allowed. In Act III, Deputy Governor John Danforth states, "But you must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there is no road between."

It's the same idea used by President George Bush to justify whatever he wants to do, always of course within the law and within the Constitution, in his War on Terror. Likewise, Gov. Danforth in 'The Crucible' always acts within the law. Miller asserts all power corrupts, and the power to kill someone corrupts absolutely.

It sums up the essence of the play; our court system is either win or lose based on adversarial confrontation. It's origins are in ancient "trial by strength" rituals. It was thought God would not allow the guilty to triumph, and so victory was considered proof of absolute innocence with no room for doubt. In Act IV, a plea to delay the executions a week was rejected by Gov. Danforth because, "Postponement now speaks a floundering on my part; reprieve or pardon must cast doubt upon the guilt of them that died till now."

Sound familiar? We are now told that a withdrawal from the War on Iraq "must cast doubt upon the sacrifice of them that died till now." Miller is very clear in portraying the corrupting power of government: Never admit a mistake, regardless of the cost to the innocent.

As the play ends, one condemned man is urged to sign the false confession he has just spoken. He responds, "You have all witnessed it; what more is needed?"

Why sign? One preacher explains it has nothing to do with guilt, innocence or mercy, instead it is solely because "the village must have proof that - - -"

The man responds, "Damn the village! I confess to God, and God has seen my name on this! It is enough!" He tells the governor, "You are the high court, your word is enough!"

But judicial rules reject God. Mercy is not by God's truth, but only by the lie demanded by the court. There is no interest in truth, justice, guilt, innocence or mercy. The man refuses, because personal honour means more than arcane rules. He explains, "Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How can I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!"

The court refuses. Justice, says Miller, is not truth or fact; it depends solely on court rules. 'The Cruicible' uses real events from 1692 to illustrate the basic weakness of an adversarial judicial system. It applies today, as much as to the McCarthy era.

This is a play for today. It applies to our procedural-bound courts, to religious fundamentalists and to intolerant political extremists. It shows what happens when government officials believe "extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice." It applies to us, now.

My wife and I first read this play about 35 years ago and we saw it performed (separately)in lackluster productions.

In May, 2006 we saw in London "The Crucible" as performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company. It lived up to exceptional reviews, including the first ever six star maximum awarded by TimeOut's theater section.

Some plays read better than they ever perform. Others perform better than they read. Others are equal. This is a play that reads and performs well, but a theater production is extremely demanding, if for other reason the number of actors required. The RSC had the requisite numbers and quality.

Miller was quite open about the play's symbolizing of the McCarthy era of smears, innuendos and attacks that ruined the lives of many innocent people. Miller made it clear that his play was fiction that was loosely based on the Salem witch trials.

The play is also about human character -- how revenge, jealousy and other motivations sometimes bring out the worst. In the 50s, few played much attention to the allusions to the Puritans, who had no tolerance for other Christians, much less other faiths. For them, as the play says, you are either with us or you are against us. A familiar refrain. Well performed or well read, the play is thought provoking. But your mind must be open to at least consider putting yourself honestly into Miller's shoes and his era.

There is a reviewer who condemns this play even while admitting he has never read it or seen it performed. He is only concerned with imposing his point of view. What he contends is that McCarthy was more right than wrong and that there was no witchhunt because there were communists -- and some in government. It's a popular theme among McCarthyism deniers

Condemning a book or play you know nothing about is akin to book burning -- or witch hunting.

Witch Hunt is defined as "an attempt to find and punish people whose opinions are unpopular and who are said to be a danger to society" My Webster defines "the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views." Miller got that right and the revisionists of facts get it wrong. From the earliest days, witch hunting has never really been about witches, but those who held those unpopular views or lived differently.

You could get to be a "fellow traveler" by speaking to the wrong people. Most American communists had quit the party in disillusionment well before McCarthy came along. McCarthy in his "Crucible" style kangaroo court went after people anyone who could give him a headline. He gave no due process or fairness. It was about confessions and naming names in a Soviet-style show trial. Which is strange for a man who and other right wingers in Congress who succeeded in overturning the conviction of the SS troops responsible for the Malmedy Massacre. It was all in character.

McCarthy won his first local election by smearing a respectedl jurist. And then, exaggerating his own war experience, he smeared Sen. La Folette as a draft dodger even though LaFollette was 46 when Pearl Harbor was attacked. McCarthy requested a DSC he almost certainly did not deserve (similar to LBJ's Silver Star). And he claimed to have flown missions (in varying numbers) when he was actually a desk bound intelligence cipher. And then he saw opportunity as a demagogue on the communist threat identified by George Kennan in the "Long Telegram."

In February, 1950 he waved a list of people who he said were communists who in the State Department. A review is no place to recount basic history of who our WWII allies were -- or that Churchill, a devout anti-communists needed the Soviet Union against Hitler as did we. There were real problems. In 1946, the State Department itself prepared the list of security risks McCarthy eventually waved around. Most of them were dismissed as security risks, not as Communists, but for other reasons, i.e. sexual preference, alcoholism, bankruptcy, etc. McCarthy got the names from a Senate report done years before. Some had been guilty of having a contrary view on China, citing the corruption and weakness of Chiang Kai-Shek. McCarthy's, who attacked gays, could not have passed the security standards due to his own sexual preferences and alcoholism.

McCarthy leveled the charge of helping the communist agenda against General Eisenhower, President Truman, FDR, General George Marshall, Secretary of State Dean Acheson and many other great men who were staunch anti-communists. In fairness to McCarthy, he did some of his worst smears while drunk or close to it. He would drink with reporters, then feed them their stories. Anyone looking at the old film can see that he was frequently intoxicated -- and his performance on the Murrow See It Now, was not only smear but out of control. Easy to see in Good Night and Good Luck. No one could damage McCarthy in the end as he did himself.

Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican conservative, strongly condemned McCarthy in her Declaration of Conscience speech in June of 1950. Others joined her, but most were afraid. Eisenhower, who had despised McCarthy for years, did not respond until McCarthy went after the Army. McCarthy targeted political opponents, e.g. Sen. Millard Tydings was tarred by McCarthy's committee with a faked photograph of him with a Communist. He smeared a Connecticut Senator who questioned his actions. Even J.Edgar Hoover had to wash his hands of him. So the smears continued until 1954 when the Senate finally censured McCarthy for conduct unbecoming his office.

McCarthy did no good and damaged the U.S. counter espionage program. It was in any event Richard Nixon who pushed the Alger Hiss case -- before the election when McCarthy discovered Çommunism was his ticket. Other major cases involving communists, for good or ill, were accomplished before McCarthy came along.

The climate of fear and division McCarthy engendered was perhaps Stalin's greatest victory. The McCarthy hearings called those who would make a good show confession-- or provide a list of names already given. Artist and writers and bureaucrats who had done nothing feared for their jobs for youthful indiscretions, or knowing a wrong someone -- or for nothing at all. McCarthy not only stifled dissent, he cast a pall over American intellectual life more in line with Stalin than the US.

Carl Foreman, who co-wrote the script for "High Noon" and co-proiduced it, is an example of those forced into exile (to Britain). As it happens, High Noon, once wildly condemned by the right, is one of the most requested film for presidential viewing. Reagan loved it. So did Lech Walesa, who cites use of its imagery, i.e. the movie poster of Gary Cooper, in Poland's first almost-free elections. Why? As Walesa said in the Wall Street Journal: "Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual." Some conservatives now rave over its depiction of duty and courage.

So too, is The Crucible about core American beliefs of nothing going along with the crowd, joining the lynch mob. The unpopularity or even complete wrongness of some views does not make it correct to punish people for having those beliefs. If you want to criticize it, first you have to see the play and understand it.

My wife and I first read this play about 35 years ago and we saw it performed (separately)in lackluster productions.

In May, 2006 we saw in London "The Crucible" as performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company. It lived up to exceptional reviews, including the first ever six star maximum awarded by TimeOut's theater section.

Some plays read better than they ever perform. Others perform better than they read. Others are equal. This is a play that reads and performs well, but a theater production is extremely demanding, if for other reason the number of actors required. The RSC had the requisite numbers and quality.

Miller was quite open about the play's symbolizing of the McCarthy era of smears, innuendos and attacks that ruined the lives of many innocent people. Miller made it clear that his play was fiction that was loosely based on the Salem witch trials.

The play is also about human character -- how revenge, jealousy and other motivations sometimes bring out the worst. In the 50s, few played much attention to the allusions to the Puritans, who had no tolerance for other Christians, much less other faiths. For them, as the play says, you are either with us or you are against us. A familiar refrain. Well performed or well read, the play is thought provoking. But your mind must be open to at least consider putting yourself honestly into Miller's shoes and his era.

There is a reviewer who condemns this play even while admitting he has never read it or seen it performed. He is only concerned with imposing his point of view. What he contends is that McCarthy was more right than wrong and that there was no witchhunt because there were communists -- and some in government. It's a popular theme among McCarthyism deniers

Condemning a book or play you know nothing about is akin to book burning -- or witch hunting.

Witch Hunt is defined as "an attempt to find and punish people whose opinions are unpopular and who are said to be a danger to society" My Webster defines "the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views." Miller got that right and the revisionists of facts get it wrong. From the earliest days, witch hunting has never really been about witches, but those who held those unpopular views or lived differently.

You could get to be a "fellow traveler" by speaking to the wrong people. Most American communists had quit the party in disillusionment well before McCarthy came along. McCarthy in his "Crucible" style kangaroo court went after people anyone who could give him a headline. He gave no due process or fairness. It was about confessions and naming names in a Soviet-style show trial. Which is strange for a man who and other right wingers in Congress who succeeded in overturning the conviction of the SS troops responsible for the Malmedy Massacre. It was all in character.

McCarthy won his first local election by smearing a respectedl jurist. And then, exaggerating his own war experience, he smeared Sen. La Folette as a draft dodger even though LaFollette was 46 when Pearl Harbor was attacked. McCarthy requested a DSC he almost certainly did not deserve (similar to LBJ's Silver Star). And he claimed to have flown missions (in varying numbers) when he was actually a desk bound intelligence cipher. And then he saw opportunity as a demagogue on the communist threat identified by George Kennan in the "Long Telegram."

In February, 1950 he waved a list of people who he said were communists who in the State Department. A review is no place to recount basic history of who our WWII allies were -- or that Churchill, a devout anti-communists needed the Soviet Union against Hitler as did we. There were real problems. In 1946, the State Department itself prepared the list of security risks McCarthy eventually waved around. Most of them were dismissed as security risks, not as Communists, but for other reasons, i.e. sexual preference, alcoholism, bankruptcy, etc. McCarthy got the names from a Senate report done years before. Some had been guilty of having a contrary view on China, citing the corruption and weakness of Chiang Kai-Shek. McCarthy's, who attacked gays, could not have passed the security standards due to his own sexual preferences and alcoholism.

McCarthy leveled the charge of helping the communist agenda against General Eisenhower, President Truman, FDR, General George Marshall, Secretary of State Dean Acheson and many other great men who were staunch anti-communists. In fairness to McCarthy, he did some of his worst smears while drunk or close to it. He would drink with reporters, then feed them their stories. Anyone looking at the old film can see that he was frequently intoxicated -- and his performance on the Murrow See It Now, was not only smear but out of control. Easy to see in Good Night and Good Luck. No one could damage McCarthy in the end as he did himself.

Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican conservative, strongly condemned McCarthy in her Declaration of Conscience speech in June of 1950. Others joined her, but most were afraid. Eisenhower, who had despised McCarthy for years, did not respond until McCarthy went after the Army. McCarthy targeted political opponents, e.g. Sen. Millard Tydings was tarred by McCarthy's committee with a faked photograph of him with a Communist. He smeared a Connecticut Senator who questioned his actions. Even J.Edgar Hoover had to wash his hands of him. So the smears continued until 1954 when the Senate finally censured McCarthy for conduct unbecoming his office.

McCarthy did no good and damaged the U.S. counter espionage program. It was in any event Richard Nixon who pushed the Alger Hiss case -- before the election when McCarthy discovered Ã?ommunism was his ticket. Other major cases involving communists, for good or ill, were accomplished before McCarthy came along.

The climate of fear and division McCarthy engendered was perhaps Stalin's greatest victory. The McCarthy hearings called those who would make a good show confession-- or provide a list of names already given. Artist and writers and bureaucrats who had done nothing feared for their jobs for youthful indiscretions, or knowing a wrong someone -- or for nothing at all. McCarthy not only stifled dissent, he cast a pall over American intellectual life more in line with Stalin than the US.

Carl Foreman, who co-wrote the script for "High Noon" and co-proiduced it, is an example of those forced into exile (to Britain). As it happens, High Noon, once wildly condemned by the right, is one of the most requested film for presidential viewing. Reagan loved it. So did Lech Walesa, who cites use of its imagery, i.e. the movie poster of Gary Cooper, in Poland's first almost-free elections. Why? As Walesa said in the Wall Street Journal: "Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual." Some conservatives now rave over its depiction of duty and courage.

So too, is The Crucible about core American beliefs of nothing going along with the crowd, joining the lynch mob. The unpopularity or even complete wrongness of some views does not make it correct to punish people for having those beliefs. If you want to criticize it, first you have to see the play and understand it.

My wife and I first read this play about 35 years ago and we saw it performed (separately)in lackluster productions.

In May, 2006 we saw in London "The Crucible" as performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company. It lived up to exceptional reviews, including the first ever six star maximum awarded by TimeOut's theater section.

Some plays read better than they ever perform. Others perform better than they read. Others are equal. This is a play that reads and performs well, but a theater production is extremely demanding, if for other reason the number of actors required. The RSC had the requisite numbers and quality.

Miller was quite open about the play's symbolizing of the McCarthy era of smears, innuendos and attacks that ruined the lives of many innocent people. Miller made it clear that play was fiction that was loosely based on the Salem witch trials.

The play is also about human character -- how revenge, jealousy and other motivations sometimes bring out the worst. In the 50s, few played much attention to the allusions to the Puritans, who had no tolerance for other Christians, much less other faiths. For them, as the play says, you are either with us or you are against us. A familiar refrain. Well performed or well read, the play is thought provoking. But your mind must be open to at least consider putting yourself honestly into Miller's shoes and his era.

There is a reviewer who condemns this play even while admitting he has never read it or seen it performed. What he contends is that McCarthy was more right than wrong and that there was no witchhunt because there were communists -- and some in government.

Condemning a book or play you know nothing about is akin to book burning -- or whitch hunting.

Witch Hunt is defined as "an attempt to find and punish people whose opinions are unpopular and who are said to be a danger to society" My Webster defines "the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views." Miller got that right and the revisionists of facts get it wrong. From the earliest days, witch hunting has never really been about witches, but those who held those unpopular views or lives.

Communists or what were then called "fellow travelers" fit that definition. You got to be a fellow traveler by attending the wrong party or even going to a meeting without knowing enough about the organizers. And we forget the desperation of the Great Depression and that a cynical Communist leadership provided an defense to the Scottsboro Boys when no one else dared. (They were subsequently and rightly cut off).

CPUSA membership rose and fell. At one point, the Party almost died, then revived and had perhaps 75,000 members in the 30s. But most quit in 1938 in disillusionment just as had earlier members in the 20s. Most joined out of idealism, not sovietism, because of Depression economic problems or long unresolved problems of denied civil rights.

Before he discovered communism, McCarthy won his first local election by smearing a respected jurist. And then, exaggerating his own war experience, he smeared Sen. LaFoylette as a draft dodger even though LaFollete was 46 when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Although he had served, McCarthy requested a DSC he almost certainly did not deserve (similar to LBJ's Silver Star). And he claimed to have flown missions when he was actually a desk bound intelligence cipher.

He came from obscurity in February, 1950 by waving a list of people who he said were communists who worked in the State Department. He was almost certainly drunk at the time. A review is no place to recount basic history of who our allies were -- or that Churchill, a devout anti-communists needed the Soviet Union against Hitler as did we. The needs of a desperate war came first. In 1946, the State Department itself prepared the list of security risks McCarthy waved around. Most of them were dismissed as security risks before McCarthy discovered his new political ticket, but not for communism but for other reasons, i.e. sexual preference, alcoholism, bankruptcy, etc. McCarthy drew the names from a Senate report done years before. Some had been guilty of only one thing, having a contrary view to that China was ours to lose, citing the corruption and weakness of Chiang Kai-Shek who was despised by military (Stillwell and others) that knew him for failing to fight the Japanese.

McCarthy level communist or fellow traveler charges against General Eisenhower, President Truman, FDR, General George Marshall, Secretary of State Dean Acheson and many other great men (and FWIW, staunch anti-communists). In fairness to McCarthy, he did some of his worst smears while drunk. Anyone looking at old film can see that he was frequently intoxicated -- and his performance on the Murrow See It Now, was not only smear but out of control. No one could damage McCarthy in the end as he did.

Margaret Chase Smith, a conservative who disapproved of the Truman Admin, condemned McCarthy in her Declaration of Conscience speech in June of 1950. But the smears continued until 1954 when McCarthy was finally censured for conduct unbecoming his office. Why? McCarthy targeted political opponents, e.g. Sen. Millard Tydings was tarred by McCarthy's committee with a faked photograph of him with a Communist. He smeared a Connecticut Senator who questioned his actions. Smith survived because Maine wouldn't listen to McCarthy. Even J.Edgar Hoover washed his hands of him.

FWIW, it turns out that it wasn't illegal to be a Communist. It's espionage that's illegal. And McCarthy did nothing of consequence there. There was soviet espionage (which was not a surprise to anyone) and that was illegal, but McCarthy damaged the counter espionage program. It was Richard Nixon who pushed the Alger Hiss case.

The worst thing McCarthy did was engender a climate of fear that was perhaps Stalin's greatest victory. People were not only forced to testify, they were forced to name names. But the McCarthy hearings only called those who would make a good show -- or provide a list of names already given. Artist and writers and bureaucrats who had done nothing feared for their jobs for youthful indiscretions -- or knowing a wrong someone. If your competence threatened someone, you might find yourself the target of a totally false accusation. McCarthy not only stifled dissent, he cast a pall over American intellectual life. More in line with Stalin than the US.

Carl Foreman, who wrote the script for "High Noon" is one of those forced into exile (to Britain). As it happens, High Noon, once condemned by the right, is one of the most requested film for presidential viewing. Reagan loved it. So did Lech Walesa, who cites use of its imagery, i.e. the movie poster, in Poland's first almost-free elections. Why? As Walesa said in the Wall Street Journal: "Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual."

That's the underlying theme of The Crucible. And that to do evil from within the system through systematic abuses is distructive to the system and everyone. Public confession is too often an attempt to take the focus from the real evil within. The unpopularity or even wrongness of some views does not make it correct to punish people for having those beliefs.

Have not read the book or seen the play. However, in reviewing the item in light of the fact that the local High School is putting on the play, I am struck by a common theme many of the other reviewers have touched upon. That being some common thread between witch trials and Joe McCarthy. McCarthy was many things, many of them bad. However, the substance of his claims were far more right than wrong. America, including many high offices in the government, of the 1940's and into the early 1950's was substantially infiltrated by Communists. That fact is provable by records opened to the public after the fall of the USSR.

What was Miller writing about in this play? Was it an examination of the psychological and social phenomena that led to the Salem witch trials? If so, it failed, because the story departs too much from historic fact and thus changes the motivation of the protagonists. Miller makes Abigail older and Proctor younger than they were in reality, and makes them erstwhile lovers, which they never in fact were. So Abigail is motivated by the jealousy and resentment of a spurned lover. Another character is motivated by a desire to seize the property of the victims. Although greed and the settling of old scores no doubt played a part in the terrible events of 1692, they could not have been the whole story. Deeper and broader religious forces must have been at work to bring about the execution of 20 innocent people. The Crucible does not enlighten us on what those forces were. That play remains to be written.

The conventional interpretation is that Miller was really writing about the McCarthy anti-Communist hearings, and likening them to a witch-hunt. This too is problematic. Miller draws the parallel in the notes in this book and elsewhere, but never explicitly states that it was the real, prime theme of the play. And once again, the essentially domestic and personal themes of the play do not shed light on the political forces that shaped the McCarthy hearings.

What is clear is that the play stands as a dramatic tour de force. It is a gift to actors, being one dramatic, emotional crisis after another. So, if it lacks the intellectual density that Miller said he aimed at after his success with Death of a Salesman, it has the dramatic force to keep it a perennial favorite in theaters. It has one weakness dramatically, and that is an excessively large cast, particularly in the first scene, where all the entrances and exits in Betty's bedroom are rather ludicrous.

The Penguin Classics edition has a good introduction by Christopher Bigsby and incorporates notes by the author. It also includes - as an appendix - Act 2, Scene 2, which is omitted in most productions.

The Crucible, one of Arthur Miller's best, and most well known books, is based off the Salem witch trials.

John Proctor, a middle aged farmer, is in a town run by the local preachers. Abigail Williams, a 17 year old girl, gets the town to follow her, after accusing many of the town leaders, of being witches. Something happened between John and Abigail, and it obviously hurts John. John tries to stop Abigail, while keeping his secret underwraps dduring the trial.

The play is pretty short, aroung 150 pages, and is in a somewhat old-southern language, so the reader should understand it before reading.

I highly recommend this to any play reader and any avid reader.

"He have his goodness now. God forbid I take it from him."

The Crucible is overall a very good book. It is the heritage and back round of the puritans, which creates the storyline of this book. The Story is an interesting tale of the events and strange happenings surrounding the Salem witch trails in 1692.
It begins with the discovery of some of the young ladies of Salem dancing at night in the woods. There is immediate talk of witchcraft around the town. I enjoyed the way that the book begins. It is not slow, the plot and storyline is introduced right away. It does not drag on like many novels.
The Crucible is a short and interesting book. That is what I like about it the most. The young girls in the book are put on trial for witchcraft along with the black slave Tituba. The mood of the book fits the story tremendously. The mood is evil and how nobody is trusted in the novel. Everyone is superstitious of one another. In the end of the novel the triumph of good over evil is evident, this is what keeps the reader reading. Throughout the novel you cannot tell who is going to triumph in the end. It is a to the reader at the end when Protector sacrifices his own life for the good of the town and for what he feels is righteous.
The ending is very fitting and it shows how a town can be haunted by wrongdoing and spilt apart by the beliefs of their families. The Crucible is a fantastic novel that shows the troubles that small puritan community encounters in the early years of its existence.

The Crucible

The crucible is a pretty good book. It is not only a good peace of literature but also a good history lesson. It sends a mix of messages throughout the story such as , good vs. evil, why are the towns people so cruel?, why do they put so much judgment on each other and lastly are the townsmen turning other suspected witches in for the sake of the town or to cover their own backs? As you read the book, it gives off a sense of evil and demonic feeling. Although, you probly feel annoyed with certain characters in the book, you soon come to realize that they're only doing what they thought was in the best interest for the town.

The crucible is all about the excommunicating of witches in the early 1900`s. All the people believed excommunicating or even better, burning them at the stake would eliminate the problem. I think for the time it took place and obvious lack of trust that was in the town the people were truly fighting for the best thing in their minds. I also feel like the people are living an unaccomplished life because all they did was fear each other and accuse each other of witchcraft.

In my opinion, the book is a good read and it offers a lot to think about when you put it down. That is if you can put it down. All in all the suspicion , hatred, accusations, and judgmental attitudes turned out to be one of the most interesting parts of American History. This book is a good piece and Id recommend it to anyone.

I thought this play was excellent. I haven't read many American plays before, but this one was definitely great. It takes place during the Salem Witch Trials, and follows the inhabitants over a period of several months. I thought it was interesting mainly because it gave me some insight into how terrifying it must have been for the people who lived back then. It shows how hysteria can make people believe anything and how a small minority can destroy so many people's lives, once they realize how much power they have. It was very disturbing, because it makes you realize how fragile our society is; but it is also very enlightening.

This was a very good play. I was actually forced to read it for school though. Usually I'm reading books like "Gossip Girl" and "The A-list", so this was a big change. The whole play is based around the character "John Proctor" who had an affair with a young girl, also neice of the Reverend, Abagail Willams. Abagail is determined to get him back, but John does not want her back and has to live with his guilt of adultery forever. Abagail,angry that John doesn't want her accuses his wife of witchcraft, along with many others. I won't tell you the ending, but it is pretty simple, how these people really thought that these people living around them were witches. The play is based on Mcarthyism... it was a really good read.