Times, They Aren’t a Changing: Arthur Miller and the Tragic Hero

GENERAL STATEMENT When a young Aristotle penned The Poetics even he would not have gleamed that his theories would become a crucible for artistic endeavours for the next 3000 years. From Oedipus, the man who could not escape his fate, to the story of star-crossed love in Romeo and Juliet and even in the work of the modern day playwright, the tragic tradition remains strong and unwavering.

NUTSHELL SENTENCE Arthur Miller’s contemporary classic The Crucible has been the topic of feverish debate for decades as to whether or not its contents contains work belonging to the tragic genre as outlined by Aristotle. The Crucible is an allegorical text which comments on the role power and hysteria can play when societies become weakened by paranoia and suspicion.

THESIS Much of the critical analysis on The Crucible regarding its tragic credentials rests solely on the identification or non-identification of John Proctor as a tragic hero. Scholars argue that if a play contains a personification of a tragic hero then it is indeed tragic. Upon close analysis and by normalising and somewhat contemporising the interpretation of Aristotelian dramatic theory pertaining to the tragic hero, it is possible to vehemently argue that John Proctor is a tragic hero akin to the likes of Oedipus or Macbeth.

PARAGRAPH PREVIEW This thesis will supported by asserting that John Proctor adheres to the prerequisites for a tragic hero as outlined in The Poetics. The two areas that will be explicitly focused on are; ‘the character must elicit sympathy from the audience’ and ‘the character must be realistic.’

CLINCHER This investigation of Aristotelian theory will ultimately help to inform and enforce the tragic reading of The Crucible

Put your hand up if you didn’t do your homework. Moving house is not an excuse.

Jackson…. Put your hand up!

If you have seen this boy can you tell him he has a detention?