Talk:The Crucible

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2

</gallery>

broken link

the link to "why i wrote the crucible" is broken, which is a darn shame. a quick search of the website and i was unable to find it. A Toyota's A Toyota 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the same error, after being assigned the essay to analyze in my English class and given the link http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/miller-crucible.html, which oddly enough was password-protected (I don't go to UPenn). Can't find the document anywhere else on the web. --75.84.205.142 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Which of these would do the best?

• http://teachers.sduhsd.net/mcunningham/why_i_wrote.htm
• http://dialogic.blogspot.com/2005/09/arthur-miller-why-i-wrote-crucible.html
• http://www.dlackey.org/weblog/docs/Why%20I%20Wrote %20The%20Crucible.htm
• http://www.dlackey.org/weblog/docs/Why%20I%20Wrote%20the%20Crucible.pdf
• http://the_english_dept.tripod.com/miller.html
• http://abeaver.wordpress.com/2006/08/28/why-i-wrote-the-crucible-by-arthur-miller/

Ogram 11:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

main photo

This page needs a picture in the infobox. any suggestions? I'll try Commons. VanTucky 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This article is not well-written. The sentences do not flow together well, the prose is wordy, there are grammar mistakes, etc. The lead needs to be significantly rewritten as it is not a summary of the article (see WP:LEAD) - it contains far too many details. The plot summary is not really a summary - it is also too detailed and poorly written. It also does not explain certain facts mentioned, as if the reader already knows them. It is an odd combination of too much information and yet not enough. I would delete both lists of characters. Any crucial character information should be revealed in the "Plot summary" section. The film adaptation section is just a list - that is poor writing - turn it into prose.

2. Factually accurate?: No article with "citation needed" tags should be nominated for GA. The entire "Historical context" section (which is basically all that the article consists of) is unsourced.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is missing four sections at least that I can think of immediately: "Themes", "Style", "Theatrical productions" and "Reception". You need to find out what literary scholars have said about this play (for the "Themes" and "Style" sections), how it was produced as a stage drama (for the "Theatrical productions" section) and how it was initially received and what its long-term reputation has been (for the "Reception" section).

4. Neutral point of view?: Relatively neutral.

5. Article stability? Stable.

6. Images?: The article could do with some more images. I'm not sure that a 19th century image of the Salem witch trials is even appropriate.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Awadewit | talk 12:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article also needs some allusion to the symbolism of the Crucible.

pmr 09:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction for this article seems to be too long. I think it needs to be split into appropriate sections. Squeater 14:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that while many scholars have agreed about Miller's allusion to the McCarthy trials, Miller himself denied that McCarthy was the real subject of the play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.107.176 (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the introduction and I have no idea what the crucible is about. I know it's alluding to the McCarthy trials, but thats it. Does the play have something to do with witches or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.123.191 (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a further reference to the Salem Witch Trials (it's already mentioned in the RH box) so I hope this makes this a bit clearer Andywebby (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

If I were to be "picky", I'd say that my one "complaint" is that there is no mention of the character of Judge Hathorne! While it is true that he is the lesser of the two judges, he is also the more "legalistic" of the two.

You may recall, also, that it is Hathorne who, when Proctor is about to 'confess', runs outside and shouts "He's confessing! Proctor is confessing", as if he's announcing this news to the whole world.

So, my one real question is: Why no mention of Judge Hathorne?

Thank you for your consideration of this question.

(Donleeman 16:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

"...based on the shootings surrounding the 1692 witch trials of Salem, Massachusetts"

Shootings? This is vandalism, correct? 69.250.246.129 23:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sparknotes copy and paste

Much of the plot summary is copied verbatim from sparknotes see website: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/crucible/section1.html

I'm unaware of the copy rights status of sparknotes but I believe blatant copying is pushing it. --NeoSoldier 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this too, it is a blatant copy and paste. 71.187.154.146 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then if its not removed in two days I will remove it. --PackersFan79 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Act Summaries/Characters

I seriously believe the act summaries and the character descriptions are incomplete. I think there is much more to be said about the course of events in the book and the characters. The Act summary is rather simple and a lot of important facts are left out. Rebecca Nurse, for example, is not mentioned until the last part of Act Four as a random character, while she had a lot more significance. The course of events is quite unclear to me. Being so much to be said about this play, these two sections could include a lot more. I was on my way to editing that to complete it when I noticed it was protected. It is really a shame as it is not a bad article, but it could be more complete.

190.49.121.61 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

And the only person executed who recited the Lord's Prayer on the gallows was Rev. George Burroughs -- which caused quite a stir since it was generally believed at the time that a witch could not say the Lord's Prayer without making a mistake. They also would not have been hanged while praying, since the condemned were always allowed their last words and prayers.

* The hysteria did not die out "as more and more people refused to save themselves by giving false confessions," as the epilogue of the movie states. The opposite was true: more and more people gave false confessions to save themselves as it became apparent that confession could save one from the noose. What ended the trials was the intervention of Governor William Phips. Contrary to what Phips told the Crown in England, he was not off in Maine fighting the Indians in King William's War through that summer, since he attended governor's council meetings regularly that summer, which were also attended by the magistrates. But public opinion of the trials did take a turn. There were over two hundred people in prison when the general reprieve was given, but they were not released until they paid their prison fees. Neither did the tide turn when Abigail Williams accused Rev. Hale's wife, as the play claims -- although the "afflicted" did start accusing a lot more people far and wide to the point of absurdity, including various people around in other Massachusetts towns whom they had never laid eyes on, including notable people such as the famous hero Capt. John Alden (who escaped after being arrested).

* Giles Corey was not executed for refusing to name a witness, as portrayed in the movie. The play is accurate: he was accused of witchcraft, and refused to enter a plea, which held up the proceedings, since the law of the time required that the accused enter a plea. He was pressed to death with stones, but the method was used to try to force him to enter a plea so that his trial could proceed. Corey probably realized that if he was tried at all, he would be executed, and his children would be disinherited. (Interestingly, Miller wrote both the play and the screenplay... Who knows why he changed it to a less-accurate explanation for his punishment and execution?)

* There's a tiny scene in the movie with a goat getting into someone's garden and tempers flaring -- the actual history is that three years before the witchcraft accusations, a neighbor's pigs got into the Nurse family's fields, and Rebecca Nurse flew off the handle yelling at him about it. Soon thereafter, the neighbor had an apparent stroke and died within a few months. This was seen as evidence in 1692 of Rebecca Nurse's witchcraft.

I removed these from the historical accuracy section, since it relates to the movie not the book. 72.67.175.145 (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giles Corey's Death

There seems to be a slight inconsistency in the nature of his death in the play. From the article for Crushing it says: While in The Crucible (the play version), it is said that he is crushed to death for refusing to reveal the name, and then later says the "aye or nay" version. I will change it to the "aye or nay" version, but do correct me if I am wrong. --greeny210.50.148.242 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Act II Scene 2

Though my version (Pengiun) has Act 2 Scene 2 in the appendix (in which Proctor confronts Abigail), I can't find any mention of it anywhere online, especially here. My book says that it was included in the original presentation of the play, though not in the original published version. (?)

164.58.75.220 (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)