The original version of The Crucible, published in 1953, included a second scene for Act II. Prior to 1971, Miller decided to excise this scene. Do you agree or disagree with Miller's decision to omit this scene? Defend your answer.
35 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I agree wiht his decision because that sceen just shows us what the realationship is like between Abigail and Procter but we see that in the first sceen. - Justin Edwards Blck #2
I agree with Millers decision to remove the scene prior to 1971. I feel that the scene was a bit out of focus with the mood of the rest of the play. Kelly Schadegg Block 2
Miller was wise to remove this scene from the play, because all it does is expose a side of Abigail that the public shouldn't see. She is a symbol of pure evil, and if she was to keep this image, this scene needs to be omitted.
Just a quick note as you're responding to this prompt...SUPPORT your opinion. For instance, "What was the relationship like?"..."What was the mood of the rest of the play and how was it 'a bit out of focus'"?, etc. Zimm
Miller's ruling of cropping that scene was most definitely a blue-ribbon decision. Preston Pile a very high and well honored critic has even these same thoughts about Miller's choice. Abigail is the evil in the community and if the audience was to see this soft loving side our thoughts could become contrary as to what Miller wishes the audience to see. Logan Pippitt, Block 2
Eliminating the second scene of Act II was the wrong decision on Miller's part. Including the scene of Abigail's vulnerable softer side would show that even extreme evil can at times appear tame. This proves that a society's defenses should never go down, because even with Abigail's murmur of a kind gesture in the woods with John Proctor, she is still portrayed as a symbol of sinister immorality. Lydia Clark-Hargreaves Block 7
Omitting the scene from the play was the right decision on Miller's part. This scene shows a more human side to Abigail. It gives her depth as a character and allows the reader to understand her and her motives better. However, the rest of the play shows her as pure evil and gives you the idea that she is everything that could be wrong in a human. Including this scene would give readers the chance to pity her and that would ruin the effect Miller is trying to create. Hannah Stirnaman Block 7
I disagree with Miller's decision to omit this from the play because it makes Abigail human, and it also shows that before meeting her Proctor had no idea how deep her affections ran, and how much evil could be caused partly because of his sin. He now has a deeper reason to expose himself and take action against her, whereas before he was hesitant about breaking the affair off because he didn't see how far she was willing to go to get him. The rest of the play shows him reeling and aggressively responding to this revelation that he's partly the cause of the accusations. Kayla Grossnickle Block 7
Millers decision to remove this scene from the book could be seen both as right or wrong. However as the author of the book Miller removed the scene to maintain Abigails character as a mean, selfish, sinister one. If this scene were left in you would have been able to see her motives and feel sympathy for her which would have defeated his purpose for her.
I also have to agree with the decision. It wasn't really needed to move the story along, and most of the information it gives can be deduced simply by looking at context clues in other acts. Plus, we already knew their 'relationship' was dead. This just shows that fact, is all.
Miller's decision was correct because throughout his play he makes Abigail seem evil and corrupt and if Miller showed the audience Abigail's good side then the perception of Abigail would change and so would the mood for the remainder of the piece Dylon Cale Block 7
Playing the Devil's Advocate, I disagree with Miller's decision to remove the scene. In this deleted addendum, the reader is allowed to witness Abigail's almost fanatical devotion to the story of witches she's created to fool herself. While it is true, as others have said, that this adds a humanizing element to Abigail, it is more a glimpse of her giving herself up to the hysteria, rather than an innocent girl with motives behind her actions. This scene really represents Abigail's abandonment of herself to the story she has fabricated.
i agree with Miller's decision because throughout the play, we learn that Abigail is very cruel. Putting the omitted scene into the play would show that Abby does have a sensitive side, which would probably make the audience show some sympathy. I believe that would defeat the effect Miller has created for the audience.
I would have to agree with Diamond. I believe Miller wnated to portray Abigail in a specific way, why else would he have changed her age too? He wanted to keep her cold-hearted and cruel by giving her emotions she loses somewhat of the impact she has already made on the audience. Omitted scene should stay "omitted."
I concur with Miller on excluding this scene. It is not nessesary to include this becase it only shows the relationship between Abigail and Proctor, and throughout the story we can understand their relationship without this piece being added. Mcdaniel BLK 2
Even though I love complicated characters, for Miller's purpose of the play, I believe he made the right choice by omitting this part because the scene takes away her stereotype as the powerful, wicked girl he needs her to be. The scene shows Abigail actually caring for John Proctor, and the reader or audience can see how intricate her character actually is. With this, it makes it more difficult to hate her and to understand how it is so easy for her to turn against Proctor later on in the play.
I think it was right for Miller to take out the scene. Throughout the play we form an opinion of Abigail and if we read this scene, then the opinion would change a little. We see Abigail as a heartless girl that doesn't have any sympathy for others. When we read the omitted scene we see that Abigail has feelings and she has been hurt too.
This scene had to be removed from the play. The fact that it showed Abigail with a human side was bad because like Preston said she is supposed to be a symbol of pure evil. Whats worse however, is that the scene made Proctor look like less of a hero by showing he still cares enough about Abigail to warn her of what he is going to do.
I believe that it was a good idea to omit the scene from the play. The scene shows Abigail as a soft, loving, and caring person while Arthur Miller wanted her to be cruel, selfish, and just plain evil. If Arthur Miller would have left this scene in it would have corrupted the thoughts of the people in Salem. The only way Miller could have kept the story line and Abigail the way he wanted was by omitting this scene and keeping it omitted. Therefore, I believe that Arthur Miller made the right decision by omitting this scene. -Kayla Cloud Block 1
I agree that the scene should have been removed. It shows a different side to Proctor and Abigail's relationship that sort of changes your opinion or view of Abby. I definately felt a little sorry for Abby and Miller really wanted to just have Abby as a certain character and not one that had many sides. If the scene was in the original order then people may have a different view of the entire book. People may side with different characters. -Aubrey Young Block #7-
Through out the play Miller made Abigail seem very evil and corrupt. By allowing Scene 2, Act 2 to stay apart of the play, would only make Abigail have more of a reason to do what she is doing. We have a view of her that is she is a bad person... But by adding this scene almost makes John Proctor seem bad and Abby good. So all in all, i agree with Millers chioce.
I wish the scene was left in. Through out the play i thought that there was still an attraction between them but in that scene I could tell that Proctor was really ready to let that part in his life go, but I did not figure that out untl the end of the story. I think that it should have been left in the play to be more helpful for the reader and see that Proctor was ready to let Abigail go.
I agree with Miller's decision to omit Act 2, Scene 2. By keeping this scene a part of the play, it would have changed everone's opinion of Abigail because it portrays her as a good person, and shows a bad side of Proctor. Also, by putting this scene in, Miller would be allowing his audience to feel sympathy for Abigail, which is not what he was going for.
While I like the scene that was omitted, I do agree with Miller's decision to cut it out. The scene shows Abigail in a new light, with more depth, which is interesting to see. But for the purpose of the story and symbolism of Abigail, it was a wise choice to delete the scene.
Personally, I really did like the scene. For the sake of the play though, it was the right desicion to take it out. It portrayed another side of Abigail that was not shown in the regular scenes. This caring and weary Abigail from the omitted scene wasn't the sterotype from the rest of the novel.
Miller's decision to omit the second scene was the right choice because it allowed him to create a better metonymy of Abigail. Miller perpetuated an image of Abigail as a jealous young girl who only had evil in her heart. It would have been out of place to show the softer side of her as it does in the second scene. Chris Hohman Block 2
uh hey...its kinda hard choice to make. Like Preston, it contradicts her true role as the evil in the play, but gives a deeper perspective on what she really: a girl that is infatuated by an older man, and all she wants is to be with him no matter how steep the price could be. Though it would contradict her true purpose, it gives us as both readers and an audience a round perspective of her. It deepens her inner turmoil and expounds the dynamical change she experiences in Act 1 when Proctor is fighting to push her away. I believe he should have left it in the play because it deepens her role as the crux of the witch trials because her failed attempts of a desperate lover provide her no sympathy from John, which drives her to be the crazed and hostile soul in Act 3. Now theres some food for thought, huh? Josh Poindexter, Block 1
I agree with his decision because it made the book better.When he omitted this scene and i read it again it made me think of how stupid Protor was to go tell Abigail about his plan. It was simillar to telling Iran or North Korea all of the United States defense secrets. From there on it would have ruined the novel because I would have known Protor was in trouble for sure. David Gardiner 2nd block
I disagree with Miller's decision to remove the scene. Perhaps his decision was headed towards taking away Abigail's non evil side, but through this Miller showed hypocrisy.How? In the book the judges see only one side to the story and base their decisions on those views. Not unlike what Miller hoped to do with the omitted scene. Edgar Suarez Blk#7
I too agree with Miller's decision to omit this scene because in the rest of the play Abigail was seen as this type of devil child and adding this scene would have taken some of this evil away by revealing another side of her. This, as Kelly Schadegg mentioned, would have ruined the mood of the play knowing Abigail wasn't as evil as she made herself seem so omitting the scene was a good decision on Miller's part.
I agree with his decision to remove the scene because it takes the reader into a whole different perspective of Abigail. It shows that she is only human and while the whole play portrays her as being evil, this one scene takes the focus away from that. Kelsey Lauersdorf 7th Block
I am not entirely sure how I am going to respond. On one hand, I love this hidden seen for the reason that it makes this play seem more like a soap opera and you find out things like secret meetings after everything else has already transpired. Also, it allows one to form their own opinions first, then Miller exposes the scene. Really all you are able to do at that point is read it and filter it in the back of your mind. So I do, in fact, agree with Miller's decision to omit this scene and keep it at the end for some after-reading.
Hello random people. I'm assuming this is an English class of some sort, and I am actually writing an essay now on whether or not this scene should be excluded. I'd like to add my two cents and say that it should be left in. Sure, Abby is made out to be purely evil, and where is that contradicted in this scene? I think she has simply driven herself mad by believing her own twisted impossible stories or lies. Also, is she really showing her "soft side" in this scene? She doesn't have one- it may seem like she is confessing her caring love for Proctor again, but she's not. She only wants him because he makes her feel older and less "ignorant" - less of a mere, overlooked child. She remains selfishly motivated.
So, thank you AP Eng. 11, I like the various perspectives shown here. But, you've distracted me from my real essay long enough.
I strongly disagree with Miller's decision. I believe that Miller left out the scene because it blatantly discloses too much information. not to mention, it contains several anomolies that would be frowned upon in the 50-80's (ie meeting with Abby in the dark, lifting her dress, being controlled by a female). I, however, believe he should have kept the scene in. i appreciate the insight it gives (by revealing Abigail's true intentions). i appreciate how he reveals Abigail as a psychopath in this passage. If you know anything about psychology then you would realize her psychopathic (or most likely in this case, sociopathic) tendencies (ie manipulation, charisma, intimidation, sexuality, and borderline violence)but this scene clearly depicts it. she is practically losing her mind.
35 comments:
I agree wiht his decision because that sceen just shows us what the realationship is like between Abigail and Procter but we see that in the first sceen.
- Justin Edwards Blck #2
I agree with Millers decision to remove the scene prior to 1971. I feel that the scene was a bit out of focus with the mood of the rest of the play.
Kelly Schadegg Block 2
Miller was wise to remove this scene from the play, because all it does is expose a side of Abigail that the public shouldn't see. She is a symbol of pure evil, and if she was to keep this image, this scene needs to be omitted.
Preston Pyle
Block 7
Just a quick note as you're responding to this prompt...SUPPORT your opinion. For instance, "What was the relationship like?"..."What was the mood of the rest of the play and how was it 'a bit out of focus'"?, etc.
Zimm
Miller's ruling of cropping that scene was most definitely a blue-ribbon decision. Preston Pile a very high and well honored critic has even these same thoughts about Miller's choice. Abigail is the evil in the community and if the audience was to see this soft loving side our thoughts could become contrary as to what Miller wishes the audience to see.
Logan Pippitt, Block 2
Eliminating the second scene of Act II was the wrong decision on Miller's part. Including the scene of Abigail's vulnerable softer side would show that even extreme evil can at times appear tame. This proves that a society's defenses should never go down, because even with Abigail's murmur of a kind gesture in the woods with John Proctor, she is still portrayed as a symbol of sinister immorality.
Lydia Clark-Hargreaves
Block 7
Omitting the scene from the play was the right decision on Miller's part. This scene shows a more human side to Abigail. It gives her depth as a character and allows the reader to understand her and her motives better. However, the rest of the play shows her as pure evil and gives you the idea that she is everything that could be wrong in a human. Including this scene would give readers the chance to pity her and that would ruin the effect Miller is trying to create.
Hannah Stirnaman
Block 7
I disagree with Miller's decision to omit this from the play because it makes Abigail human, and it also shows that before meeting her Proctor had no idea how deep her affections ran, and how much evil could be caused partly because of his sin. He now has a deeper reason to expose himself and take action against her, whereas before he was hesitant about breaking the affair off because he didn't see how far she was willing to go to get him. The rest of the play shows him reeling and aggressively responding to this revelation that he's partly the cause of the accusations.
Kayla Grossnickle Block 7
Millers decision to remove this scene from the book could be seen both as right or wrong. However as the author of the book Miller removed the scene to maintain Abigails character as a mean, selfish, sinister one. If this scene were left in you would have been able to see her motives and feel sympathy for her which would have defeated his purpose for her.
Caitlyn Sanner Blk 7
I also have to agree with the decision. It wasn't really needed to move the story along, and most of the information it gives can be deduced simply by looking at context clues in other acts. Plus, we already knew their 'relationship' was dead. This just shows that fact, is all.
Ryan Mattox
Block 1
Miller's decision was correct because throughout his play he makes Abigail seem evil and corrupt and if Miller showed the audience Abigail's good side then the perception of Abigail would change and so would the mood for the remainder of the piece
Dylon Cale
Block 7
Playing the Devil's Advocate, I disagree with Miller's decision to remove the scene. In this deleted addendum, the reader is allowed to witness Abigail's almost fanatical devotion to the story of witches she's created to fool herself. While it is true, as others have said, that this adds a humanizing element to Abigail, it is more a glimpse of her giving herself up to the hysteria, rather than an innocent girl with motives behind her actions. This scene really represents Abigail's abandonment of herself to the story she has fabricated.
Seth Rector, Block 7
i agree with Miller's decision because throughout the play, we learn that Abigail is very cruel. Putting the omitted scene into the play would show that Abby does have a sensitive side, which would probably make the audience show some sympathy. I believe that would defeat the effect Miller has created for the audience.
-Diamond Davis
Block 1
I would have to agree with Diamond. I believe Miller wnated to portray Abigail in a specific way, why else would he have changed her age too? He wanted to keep her cold-hearted and cruel by giving her emotions she loses somewhat of the impact she has already made on the audience. Omitted scene should stay "omitted."
Aubree Smethers - Block 1
I concur with Miller on excluding this scene. It is not nessesary to include this becase it only shows the relationship between Abigail and Proctor, and throughout the story we can understand their relationship without this piece being added.
Mcdaniel BLK 2
Even though I love complicated characters, for Miller's purpose of the play, I believe he made the right choice by omitting this part because the scene takes away her stereotype as the powerful, wicked girl he needs her to be. The scene shows Abigail actually caring for John Proctor, and the reader or audience can see how intricate her character actually is. With this, it makes it more difficult to hate her and to understand how it is so easy for her to turn against Proctor later on in the play.
Erica Rains
Block 7
I think it was right for Miller to take out the scene. Throughout the play we form an opinion of Abigail and if we read this scene, then the opinion would change a little. We see Abigail as a heartless girl that doesn't have any sympathy for others. When we read the omitted scene we see that Abigail has feelings and she has been hurt too.
Kayla Duran
Block 2
This scene had to be removed from the play. The fact that it showed Abigail with a human side was bad because like Preston said she is supposed to be a symbol of pure evil. Whats worse however, is that the scene made Proctor look like less of a hero by showing he still cares enough about Abigail to warn her of what he is going to do.
Quincey Johnson
Block 1
I believe that it was a good idea to omit the scene from the play. The scene shows Abigail as a soft, loving, and caring person while Arthur Miller wanted her to be cruel, selfish, and just plain evil. If Arthur Miller would have left this scene in it would have corrupted the thoughts of the people in Salem. The only way Miller could have kept the story line and Abigail the way he wanted was by omitting this scene and keeping it omitted. Therefore, I believe that Arthur Miller made the right decision by omitting this scene.
-Kayla Cloud Block 1
I agree that the scene should have been removed. It shows a different side to Proctor and Abigail's relationship that sort of changes your opinion or view of Abby. I definately felt a little sorry for Abby and Miller really wanted to just have Abby as a certain character and not one that had many sides. If the scene was in the original order then people may have a different view of the entire book. People may side with different characters.
-Aubrey Young Block #7-
Through out the play Miller made Abigail seem very evil and corrupt. By allowing Scene 2, Act 2 to stay apart of the play, would only make Abigail have more of a reason to do what she is doing. We have a view of her that is she is a bad person... But by adding this scene almost makes John Proctor seem bad and Abby good. So all in all, i agree with Millers chioce.
Tyler Edwards
Block 7
I wish the scene was left in. Through out the play i thought that there was still an attraction between them but in that scene I could tell that Proctor was really ready to let that part in his life go, but I did not figure that out untl the end of the story. I think that it should have been left in the play to be more helpful for the reader and see that Proctor was ready to let Abigail go.
Crissy Barrero
Block Dos
I agree with Miller's decision to omit Act 2, Scene 2. By keeping this scene a part of the play, it would have changed everone's opinion of Abigail because it portrays her as a good person, and shows a bad side of Proctor. Also, by putting this scene in, Miller would be allowing his audience to feel sympathy for Abigail, which is not what he was going for.
Hillary Simpson
Block 1
While I like the scene that was omitted, I do agree with Miller's decision to cut it out. The scene shows Abigail in a new light, with more depth, which is interesting to see. But for the purpose of the story and symbolism of Abigail, it was a wise choice to delete the scene.
~Michelle Gardner
Block 2
Personally, I really did like the scene. For the sake of the play though, it was the right desicion to take it out. It portrayed another side of Abigail that was not shown in the regular scenes. This caring and weary Abigail from the omitted scene wasn't the sterotype from the rest of the novel.
Kelsey Kreiser
Block 7
Miller's decision to omit the second scene was the right choice because it allowed him to create a better metonymy of Abigail. Miller perpetuated an image of Abigail as a jealous young girl who only had evil in her heart. It would have been out of place to show the softer side of her as it does in the second scene.
Chris Hohman
Block 2
uh hey...its kinda hard choice to make. Like Preston, it contradicts her true role as the evil in the play, but gives a deeper perspective on what she really: a girl that is infatuated by an older man, and all she wants is to be with him no matter how steep the price could be. Though it would contradict her true purpose, it gives us as both readers and an audience a round perspective of her. It deepens her inner turmoil and expounds the dynamical change she experiences in Act 1 when Proctor is fighting to push her away. I believe he should have left it in the play because it deepens her role as the crux of the witch trials because her failed attempts of a desperate lover provide her no sympathy from John, which drives her to be the crazed and hostile soul in Act 3. Now theres some food for thought, huh? Josh Poindexter, Block 1
I agree with his decision because it made the book better.When he omitted this scene and i read it again it made me think of how stupid Protor was to go tell Abigail about his plan. It was simillar to telling Iran or North Korea all of the United States defense secrets. From there on it would have ruined the novel because I would have known Protor was in trouble for sure.
David Gardiner
2nd block
I disagree with Miller's decision to remove the scene. Perhaps his decision was headed towards taking away Abigail's non evil side, but through this Miller showed hypocrisy.How? In the book the judges see only one side to the story and base their decisions on those views. Not unlike what Miller hoped to do with the omitted scene.
Edgar Suarez Blk#7
I too agree with Miller's decision to omit this scene because in the rest of the play Abigail was seen as this type of devil child and adding this scene would have taken some of this evil away by revealing another side of her. This, as Kelly Schadegg mentioned, would have ruined the mood of the play knowing Abigail wasn't as evil as she made herself seem so omitting the scene was a good decision on Miller's part.
Clarissa Johnson
Block 7
I agree with his decision to remove the scene because it takes the reader into a whole different perspective of Abigail. It shows that she is only human and while the whole play portrays her as being evil, this one scene takes the focus away from that.
Kelsey Lauersdorf 7th Block
I am not entirely sure how I am going to respond. On one hand, I love this hidden seen for the reason that it makes this play seem more like a soap opera and you find out things like secret meetings after everything else has already transpired. Also, it allows one to form their own opinions first, then Miller exposes the scene. Really all you are able to do at that point is read it and filter it in the back of your mind. So I do, in fact, agree with Miller's decision to omit this scene and keep it at the end for some after-reading.
*Naegele-Blk 2
I agree with Miller's decision because it shows a more sympatheic side of Abigail. I think it makes the story better.
Kiley Ulses Block 1
Hello random people. I'm assuming this is an English class of some sort, and I am actually writing an essay now on whether or not this scene should be excluded. I'd like to add my two cents and say that it should be left in. Sure, Abby is made out to be purely evil, and where is that contradicted in this scene? I think she has simply driven herself mad by believing her own twisted impossible stories or lies. Also, is she really showing her "soft side" in this scene? She doesn't have one- it may seem like she is confessing her caring love for Proctor again, but she's not. She only wants him because he makes her feel older and less "ignorant" - less of a mere, overlooked child. She remains selfishly motivated.
So, thank you AP Eng. 11, I like the various perspectives shown here. But, you've distracted me from my real essay long enough.
Ta-ta!
I strongly disagree with Miller's decision. I believe that Miller left out the scene because it blatantly discloses too much information. not to mention, it contains several anomolies that would be frowned upon in the 50-80's (ie meeting with Abby in the dark, lifting her dress, being controlled by a female). I, however, believe he should have kept the scene in. i appreciate the insight it gives (by revealing Abigail's true intentions). i appreciate how he reveals Abigail as a psychopath in this passage. If you know anything about psychology then you would realize her psychopathic (or most likely in this case, sociopathic) tendencies (ie manipulation, charisma, intimidation, sexuality, and borderline violence)but this scene clearly depicts it. she is practically losing her mind.
Post a Comment