Essay: The Crucible and Year of Wonders PDF

Preview

Summary

Comparative Essay - The Crucible and Year of Wonders Year 12 English...

Description

Comparative Analytical Essay on ‘The Crucible’ and “Year of Wonders’ “…these times, they do make monsters of us all.” (The Crucible) “…powers of the dark gathered in monstrous attack upon this village” (Year of Wonders) What do Miller & Brooks present as truly monstrous in these texts?

Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible and Geraldine Brooks’ novel, Year of Wonders, demonstrates various aspects of individuals and societies which are considered monstrous through their behaviour during a crisis in the Seventeenth Century. Year of Wonders presents contagion as being monstrous, however, the true monstrosity in the novel is demonstrated when individuals’ greed for money pushes them to behave negatively in the eyes of readers. In The Crucible, on the other hand, Miller asserts that people who disobey the ranks of their faith display monstrous qualities, but individuals who take advantage of a crisis for their own personal benefit are truly monstrous. In addition, both texts explore how collective action can become truly monstrous, though to varying extents. Furthermore, Miller and Brooks engage with the true monstrosity of hypocritical men of faith who are inconsistent with the practising of their beliefs. Both texts present the truly monstrous behaviour of individuals subsequent to establishing the ostensible monstrosity in their respective towns. While the plague seemingly creates the greatest fear among villagers in Eyam, the true monstrosity in the town is not the contagion, but rather the desire for wealth. Although the plague itself is fatal and kills many in the small town, Brooks demonstrates how individuals’ greed amidst the crisis makes “monsters of [them] all.” David Burton, who is a “neighbouring miner” of the Wickfords, takes advantage of Merry Wickford’s fragility as the only survivor in her family, to place the “first nick” upon her stowe.” His action are portrayed as being monstrous through the voice of Alun Houghton, who comments on his immorality of attempting to gain from an “orphan” by stating that nobody should be “cutting any nicks” on Merry’s “stowes any time” in “the future” even if it is “within [their] code.” In the same way, motivated by avarice, Josiah Bont acts atrociously. During the crisis, Bont has a “greedy eye” which is “counting the booty” he would “haul off” the Unwin house for the graves he digs. Brooks reveals his horrific character through the narrator of the novel, Anna, who is his daughter. She views her father negatively as a “sour and menacing creature”, which shapes readers’ opinions of him, as having monstrous qualities which only focus on materialistic items such as money. Contrastingly, Miller, though he does condemn the prioritisation of money, is more concerned about the venality of individuals who perpetuate a crisis for their own personal gain and entertainment. The playwright is frustrated with the behaviour of Thomas Putnam who encourages the fear of witchcraft in the village which is shown when he advises Parris to “proceed to look for signs of witchcraft” in his daughter, without displaying genuine concern for Betty. In the case that villagers are found to be “bound to the devil”, Putnam will have the opportunity to seize the land that they lose as a consequence of the involvement in witchcraft, and he is thus motivated to escalate the hysteria. Moreover, Mrs Putnam contributes to the crisis, as through stage directions, it can be observed that she has a “growing edge of sarcasm” towards talks that Betty is “witched”. Although she may not necessarily believe in witchcraft, her enthusiasm advances the hysteria and exhibits the monstrosity of her greedy desire to benefit from silenced individuals. For examples, because of her deeply rooted resentment towards Rebecca Nurse’s abundance in terms of her “eleven children” and “twenty-six “ grandchildren, it can be

viewed as an act of revenge when Goody Nurse is accused of witchcraft because Mrs Putnam was an advocate of the fear of witchcraft who endorses the intensification of the hysteria. Therefore, Miller suggests that the true monstrosity in his play lies within the selfishness of individuals. Brooks and Miller also explore how collective action can be truly monstrous. Year of Wonders is a novel which largely promotes the positive collective action of females, however, Brooks also signifies the monstrosity of individuals who work together to achieve a negative cause. The “ten or twelve” people who claim that Anys is a “fornicator” also “hang her with her own rope”, killing her in the heat of the moment. Their monstrosities stem from the collective action of killing Anys in the midst of the ongoing crisis of the plague, and as they have no sense of guilt when they act together, they share how they can be truly monstrous, as a group. On the other hand, Miller presents young females who work together to lie their way out of punishment as having detrimental effects upon society. When Abigail and her friends attempt to manoeuvre past the penalty for “dancing in the woods”, they are not presented as monstrous, however, when they become “enraptured” in the “light” and begin to shift the blame onto innocent women, accusing them of having “powers of the dark” that gather in “monstrous attack” upon Salem, their collective behaviour is continuously monstrous throughout the play as their behaviour leads to the “hangings” of the accused women and men. The girls continue with their monstrous actions when turning against their friend, Mary Warren in the court. They are “transfixed” while acting “hypnotised” by Mary who is “utterly confounded” and has no power to stop their baseless accusations that she is attacking them with her spirit. The girls’ betrayal of Mary is a presentation of how the consequence of their collective action of avoiding punishment is monstrous as they would have seemed like monsters to marry Warren, who “begin[s] whimpering” at that moment. Therefore, both texts, though through different events, criticise working together, while having harmful intentions, urging both the audience and readers not to replicate negative collective action. The monstrosity that men of faith who act hypocritically is demonstrated through both The Crucible and Year of Wonders. In the beginning of the play, John Proctor upholds his righteousness, as he is known to have a “sharp and biting” way with “hypocrites” and is deemed a respectable man in Salem. His “decent conduct” in the eyes of the public is compromised when the audience come to learn of his sexual history with Abigail as a married man. This aspect of Proctor, in which he attempts to conceal, is viewed as truly monstrous as in his private affairs he reinforces what he does not endorse publicly, thus Miller demonstrates the monstrosity of his hypocrisy, which has detrimental effects. Likewise, Michael Mompellion in Year of Wonders is portrayed through Anna, as the perfect rector. His seemingly good nature leads readers to trust him and find goodness in him. However, in the latter course of the novel, hypocritical aspects of Mompellion are revealed. As Anna and Mompellion find Jane Martin and Albion Samways indulging in sexual activities in public, Mompellion's response to the pair of individual differs. To Samways he was “not angry” and let him return home immediately, whereas with Martin, he harshly criticised her with his “voice [which] was a roar”, demanding her to “get on her knees”, while labelling her a “sinner”. Mompellion’s inconsistent treatment of these individuals is a display of how he can be truly monstrous through his behaviour, because as a rector, he should be equal in his treatment to all people. Furthermore, as Mompellion preaches forgiveness to the people of Eyam, he displays his hypocrisy as he is unable to forgive his own wife's past sexual indiscretion. He believes that the more he makes Elinor love him, the “more her penance might weigh” in the balance to “equal” the sins she committed in the past. As Mompellion has only been described positively through Anna's perspective, readers are invited to change the view of him as Anna does from someone who is respected to someone with an “unnatural coldness”. The hypocritical nature of Mompellion who “never lay with Elinor” is portrayed

as truly monstrous, as he, like Proctor, is unable to practice what he preaches. Thus, due to the hypocrisy between their public and private selves, both Proctor and Monpellion, are presented as possessing truly monstrous characteristics. While Year of Wonders explores the monstrosity of contagion, The Crucible demonstrates the monstrosity of defying a faith, however, it is not until the true behaviours of individuals and groups of people are revealed that both readers and the audience are able to grasp the true monstrosities in the respective novel and play. Therefore, through the presentation of individuals greed and the hypocritical nature of men. Brooks and Miller deliver the didactic purpose of writing their texts allowing the audience to reflect on their own condescending behaviour in Miller's case, while in Year of Wonders, Brooks urges readers to learn from the atrocities which occur in the novel and not to repeat them....