Monday, September 30, 2013
In Class Discussion Notes.
In the comment box below, please respond to a classmate's ideas from our in-class discussion of The Crucible Acts 1&2. You can extend the idea, offer an alternative idea, reshape it, appreciate it, etc. Since two of the honors blocks were not able to complete their discussion, and we have a half-day tomorrow which will further complicates things, let's set the due date for this post on Wednesday night. Thanks, Mr. Telles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In our class discussion of The Crucible, acts 1&2, everybody had some great comments. A comment that really interested me was a statement made by Cormac Flickinger. Cormac stated that in The Crucible, the court is so quick to rule someone guilty, without any evidence proving them so. He also mentioned that in today's court it's the exact opposite. Today, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Currently in our society court cases can go on for a very long time. This is because it takes lawyers a lot of time to search for the proof needed to find someone guilty. In The Crucible, once someone accused another of being a witch or possessed by the devil, they were immediately found guilty. I agree with Cormac's statement because he did a great job of differentiating between today's court and the court in Salem in 1692.
ReplyDeleteIn class, I heard some comments that showed in depth thoughts and views on the town of Salem and what motivates the residents to target and scapegoat their own neighbors. For me, the most interesting point brought up was that people in Salem targeted and scapegoated people of their own community to eliminate that individual from their life. The best example of this is when Abigail tries to tell the officials that Elizabeth Proctor is a witch. Evidently, Abigail doesn’t think Elizabeth is a witch, she just wants Elizabeth to be gone. For Abigail, Elizabeth is like a fence between herself and John Proctor, and if that fence is removed she will be able to see John Proctor again. Elizabeth also thinks this, so she wants to get rid of Abigail. Elizabeth asks John to help her, so he asks Mary Warren, his daughter, to testify against Abigail. After all the accusing is over, both women have targets on their backs and neither is in the position that they wanted to be in.
ReplyDeleteThis was the best argument that I heard in class because it made the most sense. Although people were accurate in saying that the townsfolk scapegoated each other to get the blame off their back, that doesn’t explain why it all started. By saying that the residents of Salem are motivated to scapegoat and target each other because they want to rid someone from their life, there is an explanation for why it all started.
One comment in our class discussion about “The Crucible” particularly caught my eye. Someone had mentioned that the character of Abigail had gained substantial social power in Salem. I agree with this. Abigail had been in the woods, and conjured with the girls, so she knows first hand “what had happened”. Also, once her accusations were thrown, everyone pitied her and believed her whole-heartedly. Because Betty was still in her stupor, and Mary Warren was an official of the court, Abigail was the character everyone turned to for answers. She could easily manipulate the story in her favor, and could easily get rid of anyone she chose. Of course, at this point in the story, anyone could accuse and be accused, but Abigail was the most trusted and believed. For example, it is unclear if Abigail was truly attacked or she staged her own stabbing. With such high social power, her story was spread through the town and took into consideration in court. Could she have staged the attack, and then have Mary Warren sew the poppet with the needle, and frame Elizabeth? We already know that Abigail hated Elizabeth, so who’s to say she went out of her way to have her convicted? Abigail definitely earned a higher seat in society after accusations were thrown. Could it be possible that her lies will be uncovered?
ReplyDeleteDuring the class discussion, someone mentioned on how the people in The Crucible are so quick to believe what other people say. They have no type of guilt; they are so quick to point out other people of their town as long as people’s eyes aren’t on them. Every opportunity they have to rat out or tell a tale to manipulate someone else’s life. They don’t have morals; they either want to get someone they don’t like in trouble, get the spotlight off of them and their family, or you feel left out whenever one is pointing fingers or telling tales about the people of Salem. An example of someone pointing fingers because of not liking someone is Abigail and Elizabeth Proctor. Abby wants to get rid of Elizabeth so then she can have John Proctor to herself. An example of someone trying to get the attention off of their family is when Parris didn’t want the girls to tell people they were doing witchcraft because it would ruin his reputation but when they started calling other people’s names, he went along with it like he was all for it even at the beginning. An example of someone feeling left out in the tales of other people was when Giles added in about how his wife reads books and when she is around, he can’t pray. Giles regrets this later. They don’t want to be accused of witchery, overthrowing the court, or going against the person calling all the shots: Abigail. The people in The Crucible don’t want the attention of the people on them, though they love to stir the pot and create drama in the town to give some excitement.
ReplyDeleteIn our in class discussion on the book the Crucible we talked about the characters and what we believed why the characters acted as they did and the reason for the towns problems. The most common idea everyone had or brought up was how all the characters believed anything anyone said to them or what one person said about another. Every character in this book seems to believe anything like they just go with the flow or just try to point fingers at anyone who they don't like or just want to get people to believe it was them. Another thing we talked about was how whenever the characters got close to finding out who was the real cause for the witchcraft they would just look the other way and try to find someone else to blame. I believe the reason everyone is causing all this commotion is because they love the caous. Everyone in the town has never really heard of witchcraft or they have no idea what it is so they use any chance they can get to get someone to be blamed for it.
ReplyDeleteOne idea brought up during the formal discussion on The Crucible was that those accusing others felt no guilt in the process. I agree for the most part with this, but it is not entirely true. In Act I, Giles told Hale about his wife reading strange books, and her presence preventing him from successfully praying. Giles at the time felt no guilt at the time, rather a pleasant feeling from being involved in the hysteria. But when Giles's wife was actually found a witch, and was to be punished, Giles felt guilt from accusing his wife in the first place. This shows that you should be careful with what you say and request, as it may actually happen, resulting in the harm of others.
ReplyDeleteA comment that was brought up during class on The Crucible was about the accusation of one another without feeling guilty or remorseful. I agree with Josh Cominelli, it is not true for ALL of the characters. Giles is an older man who doesn't second guess what he says or thinks. When he informed Hale that he could not pray because of his wife, who was reading strange books, he didn't feel any remorse or guilt. However, when Giles wife was accused of being a witch for reading these strange books, Giles was very remorseful and felt guilty, doing everything he could to prove her innocence. Giles is a good example of how the idea mentioned in class can be argued in numerous ways. One character stands out to me though, and that is Hale. Hale is a very honest man with a lot of integrity. I believe that Hale would never lie to anyone, following in God's footsteps. So, not all characters of the book are selfish and ignorant.
ReplyDeleteA comment that was mentioned in our discussion was how there was a hierarchy level for the acquisitions. I do agree with this idea that someone had. It was clear that the more money you had or if you had an important job that if you accused someone it would be taken more serious by the citizens and the court than if others accuse. Even though there is a certain amount of hierarchy in the town the court is also going by first come first serve. The sooner you went to the courts and accused someone they immediately thought that they were guilty of witch craft. Their courts immediately thought that you were guilty and there was basically no possible way to prove that you were actually innocent. They ran their court system the exact opposite way that we run ours now. Those were the most interesting facts that were discussed and I agree with during the class discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn the formal discussion on The Crucible by Arthur Miller, someone brought up the fact that the characters seem to be accusing each other systematically in order of power. I agree with this idea, because if a character accused someone with less power, like Tituba, then the accusation is more believable. This is because the accused lacks the stature and power to deflect guilt. I think people accused those with lesser power than themselves because if it was one person’s word against the other’s the judges in that time would have considered the more powerful person to be correct. Poorer characters also had no choice but to say that they committed witchcraft; no one would believe in their innocence. After they admitted to the false accusations, the people who accused them would gain power because others thought that they were right. This allowed them to accuse people with more and more power because the powerless people’s confessions gave them credibility. This was apparent when Abigail and the girls accused many women of witchcraft. Many of those women confessed and it built up Abigail’s power and believability so that she could eventually accuse Elizabeth Proctor of witchcraft. This town’s hierarchy also discourages those with less power to defy those with more power. This is because those with power often abuse it. They can make false accusations and take advantage of the less powerful people’s fear of them. This fear of power and the unfair system it thrives in is one of the roots of Salem’s problems.
ReplyDeleteIn class we had a formal discussion on the crucible by aurthur miller , someone brought up the idea were they like to change the subject because people are being accused of something and it offend their social class or level in society. I agree with this because when paris is getting accused by the rest of the town so he switches his topic to how he doesn't have any wood and about his pay. I tink some charaters do this to keep the other characters from figuring out the underlying meaning so they change the subject.
ReplyDeleteAmy Geraghty
ReplyDeleteIn our class discussion of The Crucible, someone brought up the point that the courts can't possibly put any stock in what the girls are saying, and it's certainly not enough solid evidence to execute someone over. I don't really the courts ever believed what the girls were saying, they just wanted to make it look like they were making progress by convicting "witches." Also, some of the members of the court or the accusers might have something against the people they are convicting. Parris jumps on the chance to give evidence against Elizabeth Proctor because he knows it will hurt John, who he's had a problem with since Act I. I don't even think half the townspeople believed in witchcraft, they just saw it as the perfect opportunity to get rid of the people they wanted gone.
During the formal discussion on Friday one person brought up the fact that it is so easy to accuse people of witchcraft because its a topic that the community never had to encounter with before. Witchcraft is such an unknown thing that it is easy to accuse someone of something because no one would know if the accusation is true or not. People could just assume that all kinds of things that were related to witchcraft and no one would know if they were right or not because this is a brand new idea for all of them. No one would doubt these accusations because no one know what was right or wrong because they technically have no proof of anything. Because of this everyone is able to be a suspect of witchcraft so easily. I think that this is the reason that they keep pointing fingers at people because they don’t know what to think. I think that this is also a way for many people to get back at people they don’t like because it was a way to get revenge without people think you’re doing anything wrong. Since the people in the town were afraid to start drama this was another way they could get back at prior things they were angry about. Everyone in the town did not feel bad about accusing each other because they were already mad at eachother so they felt no guilt getting them in trouble. Accusing people of witchcraft gave people power over each other that is why they were so eager to accuse people of things because it was such an easy thing to do. No one knew anything about witchcraft so people in the town could use this to their own advantage.
ReplyDeleteI in the discussion about the crucible acts 1 and 2 there was many great idea's. One that stuck out to me was people accuse other people to take the blame off them. If you think about it Abigail has no proof at all to make all these people get hung. But if you agree with Abigail then people would be less inclined to blame you for witchcraft. If you blame someone else during that hysteria then that person would almost be judged guilty without proof just because they were that scared. If that person gets proved guilty of witchcraft then people would be less likely to blame you for it since you were looking out for Salem and trying to get rid of witchcraft.
ReplyDeleteIn class, we discussed acts one and two of The Crucible. There were many great comments. One comment that I can agree with was said by Sabrina. She said that everyone is accusing others of witchcraft because they want to draw the attention away from themselves. You can clearly see this throughout act one and two. Betty, Abigail, and Mary Warren were the first to be accused because they were caught dancing in the woods. Then Elizabeth Procture was accused by Abigail because Abigail hates her. All of these characters obviously are not witches but they are just used as scapegoats.
ReplyDeleteDuring “the Crucible” discussion, a comment was made by one of my classmates that intrigued me about the book. One of my classmates said that the characters in the book were rated by their social class and how much wealth they have, and by the amount of wealth somebody has, that person has more of a say in who is innocent and who is guilty in the town. Everyone is still judging each other about who is a witch and who is not, but the people in the town that have more wealth are believed more by others and seem to have a larger say in who is a lying about what they are and what they believe in. This is not fair, even in the present day court because wealth does not matter if you are innocent or guilty and what opinions you may have. Somebody wealthy would have the same probability of being guilty or innocent as someone who is not as rich. Rich people do end up in jail for various reasons, in the past and present times. It should not make a difference to people to think that if they are rich, they are automatically innocent. The wealth in “the Crucible” is how much land a character owns or how far they have gone in life (i.e. how many kids they have had, if they are married, etc.) A person is better well respected if they have a better social standard, and this does not make sense because in modern times, many wealthy people are “rich and snotty”. Characters in the book use their wealth as an opportunity to get away with many things, such as seeing someone as guilty or innocent in a trial of court. The inequality of being rich rather than being poor is that a rich person may use their greed to favor some people and make an innocent person guilty. A poor person may be a very honest person, but may not have the advantage of overruling a wealthy person because they [poor person] does not have the height on the social pyramid to do so.
ReplyDeleteOn statement that was said by a classmate of mine was how tyhey don't even know what it really takes to be a real witch there is even such thing as being a witch. Amy made this comment and it makes a lot of confusion and questioning. Throughout the whole book every character constantly blaims each other for things and one of those things is being a witch. Theuy all accuse eachother of being a witch when really they don'y know what a witch really is and the factors it takes to be called a witch. So it brings u the question that whos lying? Why are they all saying each other are witches when they don't know the characteristics of being a witch. Do any of them really know what it takes to be a witch? If they don't then why are they accusing? Is there reasoning behind their accusing? Another question it draws up is how does the court make decisons on who is a witch? I think the court doesn't really know who to believe is a witch and who is and thats why they're so quick to judge and so quick to make decisions. They're trusting peoples accusions about eachother and thats why people can accuse so easily, because nobody really knows so they can't question it.
ReplyDeleteIn the formal discussion on Friday about the "Crucible" I thought one of my piers had a very important point. They said that the town was already so small and everyone already knew and had problems with one and another that this accusing others as witch craft was an excuse to be at peoples necks about things. I thought this was such a good point because its true, half the town hated at least one person that also lived in the town. Parris and John Proctor didn't like each other so at one point John tried to frame Parris so he would no longer be questioned. Another example was how Abigail wanted to be with John and so she convinced the judge that Elizabeth Proctor, Johns wife that she was a witch. I thought this was a very important and good point made in the discussion group.
ReplyDeleteDuring our class discussion, someone mentioned that the more blame someone gave out, the lower the chance is that that accuser will be blamed. I like this idea because it is very logical and is easily picked up on in the book. In the first act when Tituba is being questioned by Hale, and she impulsively says the names of two witches, quickly taking the attention and blame away from her. Then Abigail and Betty both exclaim the names of “witches” that they know, taking the attention and blame away from them. Since it isn’t logical for someone to be a witch accusing other witches, the townspeople easily believe the girls and believe that they are not witches. Later on in the book more people start to be accused of witchcraft, which takes the blame away from those who were the accusers. The trend of accusing people for an individuals own innocence and benefit is prevalent throughout The Crucible, and it was reinforced by this idea mentioned in our class discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn our formal class discussion of The Crucible, somebody mentioned that the people of Salem do not know what witchcraft is. I agree and disagree about this comment. I agree because witchcraft can really not be defined, therefore it would be very difficult for somebody to know exactly what it is. Also, people are being accused of witchcraft for seriously abstract reasons, which demonstrates that there is no guideline for witchcraft. Also, I disagree because there have been some common themes involved with the witchcraft accusations. One theme is the Devil, who appears to be constantly mentioned by accusers. Also, conjuring spirits and anything involving spirits have been associated with witchcraft. These themes can be set as somewhat of a guideline, but it can definitely be argued that not everybody is aware of this, and some people think of witchcraft as other, more bizarre things.
ReplyDeleteDuring our class discussion, someone brought up Giles and how he tried to bring attention to himself by calling out his wife - how she reads in the room and that prevents him from praying. That comment made me wonder why someone would want to bring attention towards themselves in a time of such paranoia and controversy. It was mentioned that Giles may have felt left out and wanted to be a part of the group, therefore saying something that had almost nothing to do with witches at all so he could have a say in the discussion. This makes me think about how much Giles cares about his wife - is he willing to sacrifice his wife in order to draw more attention to himself? And it that attention really worth it? Our class discussion about Giles and his place in the story offered interesting ideas and opinions and showed that he is an interesting character.
ReplyDeleteLast Friday we had a discussion on "The Crucible" in class about acts one and two. The main question on the board asked us why these people scapegoat each other (on the lines of that at least). I believe that one o the most significant points was not made to directly answer this question. The best point made was that the only reason the court is listening to Abigail is because they are scared that the townsfolk will accuse them of doing something wrong because there is already such a high level of believability of witchcraft. Since there are more townsfolk that believe Abigail, the judges would most likely also get accused or be affiliated, or put in jail. It could also easily be the fact that they do not want to lose their reputation rather than getting put in jail. Everyone would call them a liar if they did not accuse the person because they listen rather to Abigail. To extend to this idea I would also say that the judges are fueled by greed for power. The more people they condemn that Abigail states are guilty, the more Abigail will like them. Since Abigail is in good hands by the town, and they are her "friends" they will get a good reputation for doing the right thing. Also if they agree with what the town says they will be well liked in the town even more. This is some of what I received from acts one and two from "The Crucible".
ReplyDeleteDuring our discussion on acts 1 and 2 of Arthur Millers, The Crucible, there were many interesting comments about the novel. One specific comment that I thought was particularly interesting was Mike Vaiarella's. He added to the mix his theory on how people can be almost protected from being accused of witchcraft. His comment was, “It seems that everybody who has accused someone or is associated with the court has been accused.” To me this is a great thing to add into the conversation. One of his examples was of Abigail’s position so far in the novel. She is not being attacked about being a witch, and she accused Elizabeth Procter. I also liked this comment because I had a similar thought train going at the time. I added on how once you are accused there is really no way that someone could convince the court that they weren't guilty. The court system was basically run so that the suspects were guilty with slim chance of being proved innocent. This is basically the exact opposite of our courts today. I thought this was a great comment because it was very relevant to the topic and I had a similar train of thought going at the same time.
ReplyDeleteIn the class discussion that our class had on the play the “Crucible” someone made a point that I completely agreed with and could add onto. In not exact words he stated “In the play, the people that accused others were never second gest, and were never accused back.” Reasons why I agree with this are because throughout the whole play the characters that did the accusing never were questioned for false accusation. In these day and times people are innocent till proven guilty, even in the most obvious criminal trials there needs to be substantial evidence to be convicted. The court in the play didn’t need evidence and just believed what people were saying, and the only explanation for this was witchcraft. Witchery and witchcraft were never proven and the only thing that could tie you to this was acting weird. My question is why didn’t the people that were being blamed then turn it around on the individual(s) that accused them? The first reaction for the defense should have been to ask for proof, and secondly they should have turned it around on that person. They could have said “You are the one who is guilty, and the only reason why you are blaming me is because you don’t want to be caught.” The town seemed to lack street smarts and problem solving skills and their idiocity is what cause the social downfall of the community.
ReplyDeleteWhile sharing ideas, feelings, and important scenes from The Crucible with fellow classmates in a formal discussion last Thursday, many great topics to ponder came to the table. Though it was hard to chose the best concept from many great perspectives, one interpretation stood out the most. When one of my fellow classmates brought up the idea that no one in the town of Salem actually knew about witchcraft, so they could basically just make up the rules and regulations as they went along, it really made me think. In history, if you consider it, this happens all the time; something new comes along that everyone is in an uproar about, and authority doesn’t know how to handle this new situation, so they make up the consequences as they go along. If that doesn’t work, then they try something new; trial and error. So really, during the time of the Salem Witch Trials,since nobody really knew what to do, they just killed off anyone who was accused of witchcraft.This idea that was brought up gave an incredible insight of the book and opened my mind up to much deeper thought while continuing on with The Crucible.
ReplyDeleteIn class while we were discussing the Crucible, one of my classmates made a good point by stating that maybe the villagers were bored and the drama of the witch trials was a good way to entertain them. I think this could be true because back then, before electricity, there wasn't a lot you had to entertain yourself. Especially not when you were living in a small village. Watching trials and seeing your neighbors turn against your other neighbors isn't something you can look away from and not get involved in. The drama of the trials was the main event going on in all of the villagers life and it probably excited them the same way reading a book about it excites the reader. When a small village like the one in the book is filled with a bunch of bored villagers, any source of excitement or entertainment will attract all of their attention.
ReplyDelete