the crucible deleted scene essay

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — The Crucible — The Crucible: Deleted Scene Analysis

The Crucible: Deleted Scene Analysis

• Categories: Arthur Miller The Crucible

About this sample

Words: 656 |

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Words: 656 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The deleted scene, significance.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 566 words

3 pages / 1262 words

1 pages / 437 words

3 pages / 1428 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Crucible

In Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible, fear plays a central role in driving the actions and decisions of the characters. From the initial accusations of witchcraft to the climactic trials and executions, fear permeates every [...]

In Arthur Miller's iconic play, The Crucible, the character of Corey serves as a fascinating and complex figure that demands further analysis. Corey represents the common man caught up in the hysteria of the Salem witch trials, [...]

Arthur Miller's "The Crucible," set during the Salem witch trials, intricately explores the themes of integrity, hysteria, and societal pressures, with Reverend Samuel Parris positioned at the vortex of these thematic concerns. [...]

Vengeance and its role in human nature have been subjects of much debate throughout history. In Arthur Miller's play The Crucible, we see how the desire for revenge can lead individuals to commit heinous acts. The play portrays [...]

Over 200 people were accused of witchcraft in a court case called the Salem Witch Trials , and 19 people were executed, In a court case called the Salem Witch Trials. A play that express the feelings of the people of Salem were [...]

Arther Miller's, The Crucible sparked many ideas in people’s minds and speaks of topics unseen at the time. Miller wanted to give an idea of how one lie after another can escalate as a chain reaction creating anarchy throughout [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Mrs. Dwyer's Class Blog

Tuesday, february 4, 2014, the crucible: the deleted scene.

• Why do you think Arthur Miller removed the scene?
• How does it change the way you think about Abigail?
• Does it change the subtext and/or tension in Act III?
• Should it be included in the play?
• Specifically, what elements of the play are affected by either deleting or including the scene?

25 comments:

Jake Dare why i think Arthur Miller removed this scene because he did not want Proctor to look like bad guy, like the one that did something wrong and to not show the other side of Proctor that he will ruin her if he does not let his wife go free during the trial. yes it does change the way that I look at Abigail as from before this I thought she was mean and selfish but after reading this deleted scene i can kind of see another side of her that isn't so bad and she actually cares. I think it does change the tension of act three because while you are reading it, in the back of your mind your thinking like is Abigail going to do what Proctor said that night of no? I think that this scene should not be in the play because then it would create a problem within the play and leaving people to wonder if what Abigail said during the court session was influenced by Proctor or not. If the play was kept in the play it would give some back story of how Abigail is a whore and some way but also creating more problems than there already are. If left out of the play I don't think it would of changed my view on anything because we wouldn't of known what happened that night.

To add on to Jake's, I think Arthur Miller did not include this scene in the play because it would be confusing to the audience on how they viewed Proctor seeing as he had just told Elizabeth he was not involved with Abigail anymore, so it would make him seem kind of hypocritical. This scene changed my view towards Abigail because throughout the whole play she is kind of bossy, but when it comes to Proctor she seems to listen to him and even agreed to help him save his wife which is not what I would have expected from her due to her previous behavior. I do not think this should be included in the play because it just adds more confusion and more suspicion that is not backed up by anything. Agreeing with Jake, by adding this scene, the reader would question whether Abigail only said what she said because she was threatened by Proctor. By leaving it out, there is no sense of threat that is leading to people's confessions or accusations towards people during Act III and it just leaves it so the audience is left without facts of what really happened so it's like they are presented with it like they would be if they were actually there at the time.

I disagree with Leah's statement that the play is better off without this scene in the text. I believe it portrays Proctor as much more caring about his wife It shows that he is willing to put his entire reputation, along with Abigail's, on the line and that he is honestly willing to do anything that will save Elizabeth's life . I also believe it would have been helpful to include the scene because it makes Abigail seem even more delusional. She attempts to convince Proctor that she feels shame for the way she gave herself away to him and the reputation that ensued, however she still believes that they can one day they can be together. Abigail also insists that a man who has been in jail for a month, George Jacobs, had been harming her every night; furthering the idea that Abigail is mentally unstable and a liar. I also disagree with Jake's justification for why the scene should not be included in the play. I believe that this internal questioning of the reader would help to discredit Abigail even more and show her untrustworthy character. Therefore, I believe that the addition of this scene would help Proctor's effort to save his wife seem more sincere.

Daniel Figuenick Hey everyone! I believe Arthur Miller removed this part from the play because it solely gives an introduction to the court scene in Act III. This part is not needed for the play to move on, but does make it more fluent. I see where you are coming form Jake, but disagree. I think this scene just puts the bad taste in my mouth due to Abby's rude and insolent behavior towards Elizabeth. I do not see her being nice in this scene to anyone but Proctor. She continues to be nasty to Elizabeth through this quote, "You brought me from my bed to speak of her?" This quote shows she still dislikes Elizabeth and is disgusted of Proctor to bring her out of her bed to talk about his wife. This scene can clear up parts in Act III, but does not relieve any tensions. I do not think this part is needed in the play because we all read Act III before reading this deleted scene and everything made sense. Therefore this part is not needed in the play. By adding this scene to the play, the reader would be allowed to see how Abigail still cares nothing about Elizabeth and still wants to be with Proctor. It also shows that Proctor is a good man for wanting to warn Abby of what the events will be like in the court.

I agree with some of what leah and jake said. But i do feel a little bit that maybe Author Miller should add this scene because in Act II when Proctor comes home and tells his wife he saw Abigail that day she gets upset and all he does is kind of just blow her off. In my opinion that might make Proctor look a little bad in a women's eye. But my reaction to the deleted seen was that it showed me that Proctor does care about his wife alot and does want to continue a life with her. So he tries to go out of his way to make it right and make sure Elizabeth is set free, so i feel the deleted seen makes him look better then before. Also i feel that this scene might make Abigial look a little worse at certain parts of it because she sounds a little crazy going on with the needle stabbing the doll story.But overall l I would say im a little stuck of whether i would want the scene to be put in the book or not.

After reading Jake and Leah's opinions responses to this scene I have somewhat of a different view of Abigail's character. While before I believed that she was completely out of her mind, and like Gretchen stated: completely delusional, I now believe after reading those comments that she has her reasons for doing the things that she does and is not completely inhuman. While she definitely still is in a state of insanity, she appears to genuinely care for Proctor and wants to help him in any way she can. Even if she has wrong and almost selfish reasons for doing it, she definitely wants to make him happy and be a good wife to him. This makes her character more understandable and makes her less irritating to read about for me personally, as she is not entirely evil, and this makes her a great antagonist. I think this would have been a good addition to the story as it would have made both the negative and positive character aspects of Proctor and Abigail shine more, and would have helped to engage the reader more than they have been.

I agree with Dan and Leah that this scene is not needed. It gives an insight as to who they both really are. It shows how greedy John really is. He said, "If you do not free my wife tomorrow, I am set and bound to ruin you, Abby." to me this shows that John just cares about himself and wants everyone to do as he pleases. It shows that he is kind of a jerk. Also, John doesn't realize that he can't force people into doing what he wants. As for Abby's character, it shows that she's more rude and corrupt. I did not get the impression before that she had more male attention than John Proctor but it's clear now that she does. I agree with Zoe that my opinion changed of Abby after this scene as well. This scene clarified a lot for me but it was not needed for the play to go on. I predict that in scene four John might go after her because she didn't defend his wife because he already threatened her. I don't really like Abby as much anymore because she also seems to look out for herself only. Like Dan said, this scene isn't needed for the play to go on but it makes it more fluent.

I agree with Gretchen that this scene shows that Proctor is caring towards his wife. I think this scene should have been included because it reassures the audience that Proctor loves his wife and regrets having the affair with Abigail. This changes the way I think about Abigail because it really shows that she is a liar because she says that George Jacobs raps her with his stick but Proctor says that George Jacobs is in jail. It also shows that she is in love with Proctor and wants to be his wife. I also agree with Sara about this scene making Proctor look better. To add on, in Act II, Elizabeth gets very angry at Proctor when he says that he and Abigail were in a room together. This makes Proctor seem untrustworthy and not a good husband, but the deleted scene shows that he is in fact a good husband and would do anything to prove that Elizabeth is innocent. Without this scene, the book doesn't really show the effort that Proctor put in to prove that Elizabeth is innocent, which is why I think it should be included.

I agree with Jill and Gretchen that this scene should be in the play because it not only reassures the reader that Proctor really has in fact moved on from the affair but that he also is dedicated to his wife and wants to make things right with her. This scene does not change my opinion of Abby though. From the first act, i could tell she was obsessed with john and as the play goes on, it's more obvious. In this scene, Abby comes across as someone who appears to be mentally unstable and obsessed. She will not let the fact that she wants to be johns wife go. John says she has other suitors, but she feels they are boring and not good enough. She only proves my point of her being mentally unstable by telling john of the marks she has on her and the beatings she gets. Even though George Jacobs is in jail, she still claims he marks her. She makes up such stories to get others in jail that she seems to be believing of them now.

I'm going to be fairly straightforward and say that this "deleted scene" is terrible. By itself, it's perfectly adequate, but I really dislike the way it would have fit into the play. This scene serves two purposes; Make it clear what kind of characters Abigail and Proctor are, and serve as an "introduction" to the court scene the following day. Unfortunately, it does these things very poorly. Act I and Act II are mainly about character development. Yes, the accusations start to be made, but we really only hear about them, and these two acts mostly just introduce the characters, and explain, and in some cases further (especially between Proctor, his wife, and Abigail), the interactions between said characters. The way this is done is quite amazing. We get to see Abigail's darker side, but we don't know to what extents she will go. We see the seeds of corruption in her, but will she really kill so many just to get to Proctor? It's a fantastic way to build tension, and let the reader/audience make their on conclusion and assessments. Similarly, with Proctor, we still see his lust for Abigail, and his struggle to stay faithful to his wife. Really, I'd say this is of lesser importance, but nonetheless one can't help but to wonder. From these first two Acts, we get a clear picture of who these characters are, but we don't know quite enough to make it extremely clear where the characters stand. It is implied that Abigail called Elizabeth's name because she wants Proctor for herself, but we still have room to think otherwise. After reading this deleted scene, it's so obvious it hurts. It removes all doubt as to the character's intentions and resolve, and basically comes right out and tells us Abigail is messed up in the head. I'm not and English major, but doesn't that ruin the point of having, I don't know, suspense and intrigue? Even having read Act III already, I'm really disappointed to have read this before finishing the play. Oh right, there's questions to answer. I think this scene was removed because it reveals too much about both Proctor and Abigail, and makes the court scene less exciting. We would have known that Abigail knew about Mary's confession, and as such it would make sense that she would have something prepared to mentally break her and make Proctor look foolish. In fact, judging by Abigail's earlier actions and the scene in the woods, we'd almost EXPECT it to happen, which ruins the entirety of Act III. Although I've already mentioned Abigail quite a lot so far, as for how my opinion of her has changed, I went from assuming she was a little off her rocker to knowing she's completely insane and lacking of all moral values. Proctor is flat out telling her he will ruin her and saving his wife is all he cares about, and she's like, "Nah, I'm going to kill her anyways. Goodnight." My main issue with this scene is how it alters Act III. I love how we're reading the scene wondering how the interaction between Proctor, Mary, Abigail, and the judge is going to play out. With the scene is the woods, it just seems pretty... predictable. To Jake, Gretchen, Sara, Jill, and Kenna; I'd love to know why you like the idea of being reassured of Proctor's dedication toward his wife and of Abigail's resolve to win him? I'm not in any way trying to denounce (OH MY GOD VOCAB WORDS AM I RIGHT) your opinion, but I'm completely convinced it would make the following Act unbearably predictable and boring. Sometimes ambiguity is nice, especially, in my opinion, when it comes to character development and resolve. That's a big part of what makes or breaks a story for me, and I think this scene would really detract from the value of the story.

Excellent response and I agree totally. I'm pretty sure Arthur Miller did too and that's why he removed it.

I completely agree with Elias on how we can see the darker side of Abigail in this scene, but I also combined it with what Gretchen first mentioned of seeing her delusion. I think that this scene showed that Abigail is so deep into this lie that she is starting to believe herself to the point where she's convinced that what she's doing is just and in the right. This shows that the town has reached a point that is treacherous and vital to the plot. It shows that there is no turning back, there can not be any admittance of what actually happened and that nothing will ever be the same. The lie is now too big and can only get bigger. This was shown by Abigail lying to John. John was the one person in the book that we believed she would be truthful with because of her love for him and Abigail lying to John shows that this has escalated beyond control. I believe that this scene was deleted because with it, the play can be pretty predictable and does not leave much to the imagination, at least for the next scene (Like Elias mentioned). Without knowing just how far Abigail is willing to go, the reader is left to figure it out for themselves why Abigail is doing this and just how far she will go and has allowed it to go already. I believe it was good to leave this scene out of the play because I believe it would have made the play less exciting and more confusing to the reader. This scene and the scene in Act three show the same side of Abigail, but act three was more effective in getting across the point that Abigail is too far in to get out of this mess and she is willing to go as far as she needs to to get what she wants. I think act three was more effective in this because it showed Abigail actually acting and carrying through with what she believes versus just telling John what she will do. I agree with Elias when he says that this scene made it less interesting and did not leave much to the imagination. This is because Abigail telling John what she is going to do and how she feels about it whereas with just act three, the reader gets to figure it out. I think Arthur Miller made the right choice and the plot and characterization was made more interesting through the deleting of this scene.

My initial reaction to this scene was to be annoyed that Proctor was confronting Abby. He should be smart enough to realize that she desperately wants him to give her attention. I understand the point that Gretchen and Jill bring up, that this shows how Proctor cares about his wife. Yes, if this scene were inserted after Act II, it would give the reader an introduction to how Proctor fights for his wife's freedom. However, this interaction between him and Abby, also gives her a warning. He told Abby that he was out to ruin her, and pretty much gave her time to time to prepare her manipulative schemes so she may further convince the town government of her claims. This makes Proctor look really dumb and doesn't provide a depiction of his love for his wife. If he loved his wife, he should have his head on screwed straight and prepare himself to fight Abby in the courtroom, rather than throwing pebbles at her window in the middle of the night only to give her knowledge of his plans. If he was willing to do anything to save his wife, he should have treated the situation delicately and made rational action since he knows Abby is psychotic. In Act III, Abby and the other girl's actions were synchronized and I definitely think that it was planned ahead, thanks to good old Proctor. I also disagree with Leah and Zoe because I do not believe that this scene shows how Abby wants to help Proctor. I think this scene shows how Abby is absolutely blinded by her craziness and wants to make it so that Proctor has no other option, basically exemplifying how incredibly selfish she is and if anything, her fixation* on Proctor. I think Arthur Miller removed this scene because it completely defeats Act III. I agree with Elias, that the inclusion of the deleted scene would make the courtroom scene very boring. After knowing both Proctor and Abby's plans, the entire scene is completely predictable. Personally, this scene also made me not like Proctor and if I had read it before Act III, I would just be blaming Proctor throughout Act III because he's the one that told Abby his plans and of Mary's confession. This scene doesn't chance how I think about Abby, it further develops my opinion of her. It illustrates more clearly how Abby sees her and Proctor's relationship and the town as a whole. She talks about all the hypocrites (irony), showing how she is blaming people for witchcraft just because she doesn't like them for something else they've done in the past. It reveals how manipulative she is, and also her reasons behind it (she wants Proctor, and to be rid of all hypocrites.) It's obvious how Abby is completely blind of the truth, when it is clearly presented to her as Proctor tells her he wants to save his wife and wants to ruin Abby. Abby is given the chance to do the right thing, and she refuses. I don't think that this scene should be included in the play, because Act III would lose so much suspense. Basically everything Elias said, the courtroom scene would be very predictable and you would know Abby's intentions throughout the scene. By deleting the scene, Act III is much more significant because it isn't given that introduction. Also, without seeing Proctor's poor decision of telling Abby everything, Act III shows his love for his wife and how he really is willing to do anything to save her. But with the scene, Proctor looks pretty foolish. Also, putting the scene in would reiterate Abby's power over the girls because then it would be apparent that the courtroom charade was planned and Abby convinced them to follow her lead and pretend to see spirits and such. However, without the deleted scene, Abby's power over the girls is more mystical since they just follow everything she does without communicating with her, and actually makes Abby look like a witch.

Side note: When Abby talks about all of the boys hurting her and being pricked open by Elizabeth, is she talking about witchcraft? She says the man in jail raps her with his stick. Is she talking about voodoo dolls?

I agree with Jake and Leah on their opinions of Abigail, however I think it should be expected that she would try and help Proctor. Even though Abigail despises Elizabeth for kicking her out of the house and taking her away from Proctor, I believe she would do anything to regain Proctor's love and trust again. Not only does this scene reveal Abigail's character but Proctors as well. He promised his wife Elizabeth that he would no longer speak to Abigail or have any sort of contact with her. By Proctor seeking Abigail out and telling her "He will ruin her'' it makes Proctor look like the bad guy rather than Abigail. If this scene was added to the play it would have furthered Miller's characterization of Abigail. Initially, Abigail comes off crazy and obsessed. By adding this scene and showing Proctor the marks on her skin, it shows the audience her true obsession with Proctor and the psychological problems she has. I agree with Elias in regards to the trial scene. If Miller had added this scene, the audience would know Abigail's intentions and plans going into this scene. The element of surprise and suspense would have been lost and the scene would have been predictable and less exciting.

I mostly agree with Gretchen's response, and later Jill's and Kenna's. I think that this scene is important for the reader to get a better understanding of who John Proctor is. From what was included in the play, I got the impression that Proctor was reluctantly pushing Abigial away because he felt bad about the affair, but secretly wanted to be with her. This scene shows his sincerety in his loyalty to Elizabeth, his wife, which we didnt get from what was included in the play. This also shows how, as Gretchen put it, Abigail is "dylusional". She made up the stories of the town performing witchcraft at the beginning to save herself, and now seems to think that it's true. She claims that all of the cuts and bruises she has are from the witches in the town and seems to believe it. I get a sense that she isnt just trying to make things go her way, she is also crazy. I do, however, agree with both Elias and Mackenzie in saying that the inclusion of this scene in the play would have made the trial less exciting. The reader would have had the knowledge of Proctors intentions to confess to lechery if neccessary, making that action in the court much less surprising. Overall, this excluded scene would have both contributed to and hurt the overall play. Miller was faced with all of the controversial questions that we have discussed, and I cannot say whether or not he made the right decesion. -Marina Kohary

I am in the most agreement with Elias' response thus far. I believe this scene was removed because it causes readers to view both Proctor and Abigail in a different light than that we were used to. Reader's have come to know Proctor as being this man with a lot of integrity, often speaking his mind. Now we see Proctor all weak and sympathetic, coming to Abigail in the middle of the night to give her "all good time to think on what to do to save yourself". This quote gives us the impression that Proctor's love for Abby is still very present even though he had stated he wanted nothing to do with the girl numerous times. This scene also allows readers to view Abby's character is a different way. We had grown to know Abby as this delusive liar that does what she does for her own personal benefit. Miller even described her as having "an endless capacity for dissembling". But now we see Abigail come out as this pathetic girl who has had enough of all the abuse from the "witchcraft". Author Miller had this scene removed, in my opinion, because it destroys the character development of Proctor and Abigail, thus weakening his work.

I agree with Elias, i feel the purpose of this scene was to reemphasize the topic that Proctor is truly trying to reconstruct his marriage with Elizabeth. Also, it really sets Abigail's personality in stone by revealing to the audience that she is seriously delusional. However, i do not believe that it makes Proctor out to be sympathetic and weak. He does not comfort her as the audience may anticipate, instead he simply agrees with her and hardly makes any advances towards her sexually. I also agree with Elias in that although it does introduce scene III, it does not however need to be included, as scene III does not perticularly need and introduction, as the previous scene is sufficient in supplying the audience with enough information to adequately predict the events to come. This scene is unnecessary and Arthur Miller most likely excluded it for these sole reasons.

Okay so I'm going to start off by talking about Elias's comment, because clearly that seems to be the most controversial of the group. I believe that though he did bring up valid points on how the scene may kill the suspense of the next scene, but I believe that this deleted scene did not really add anything to which we didn't already know. The fact that Abby is crazy obsessed over Proctor could have already been assumed, and there is really no other reason for Abby to be accusing Elizabeth of witchcraft other than the fact that Abby wants Proctor for herself. What I believe is that where the real suspense in this scene comes from, is the outcome of the trail, and not if it is Abby's intent to get to Proctor. Yes, I do have to admit that the deleted scene may have said it way too blatantly and upfront that Abby is indeed insane, and that she wants Proctor, but I don't think that it took away the suspense from the next scene. Personally, it doesn't change the way in which Abby appears in my mind. I already knew that she was insane from the fact that she drank blood, accuses everyone of witchcraft, bosses around the other girls, and acts head over heels around Proctor. Also, let's not forget Miller did not get rid of the scene entirely, and he kept it in the appendix. He must have wanted to keep it in the end so that if the readers go through the whole play without recognizing that Abby was the clear antagonist, (which I believe would be very hard not to see) then that scene would be the indicator of Abby being the person behind all of the madness. Thinking back now, I do not even think that Miller ever intended for this scene to be in Act II scene 2. He just wanted to use it as a flashback at the end of the play to give the reader the clear giveaway that Abby was behind the mischief. He realized that it would have messed with the character development (as many others have previously said), and that is why he put it at the end. I believe that people are not giving Miller the credit that he deserves for this. The scene should not be actually put in at Act II scene 2, and is in the correct place as it stays right now.

After reading the appendix I agree with Arthur Miller's decision to exclude it from the rest of the play. I understood the purpose of the scene which was to expand the severity of the aggression and tension between Proctor and Abigail. The scene also served the purpose of proving to the reader how deeply Proctor cares about his wife and how he really does want to mend his relationship with her. Time and time again Proctor has had plentiful opportunities to return to his unfaithful ways but he has shown his commitment to his wife by not taking advantage of these opportunities. With that being said the appendix is really an unnecessary transition into the court scene which I believe actually breaks up the flow of the play rendering it not necessary. That is why I believe that Arthur Miller was correct in making the decision to exclude this scene from the play.

I'm agreeing with about half the class here. There is a reason this is a deleted scene, it is unneeded. Much of it seems to be the same thing as Abigail's first encounter with Proctor during the play. Abigail is trying to get sympathy, while Proctor stays true to what he believes. This scene is unneeded because it is just a repetition of an earlier scene.

The Appendix was a scene in the book that was definelty not needed and was meant to be deleted from the start. The scene was about Abigail and Proctor and how he is threatening her about telling people about their affair. There already is a crazy amount of tension between the characters in this book, especially Abigail and Proctor. It would just add unnecessary tension between the two and cause bad things to happen.

I agree with Miller for taking this scene out of the book because it would confuse the reader. Up to the point of where the appendix is Proctor has been a cheating twat and now all of a sudden he cares about his wife? This scene shares info that the reader doesn't need and will never need. This scene also opens the readers eyes about how screwed up Abigail is. She defiantly has some mental problems because she shows Proctor all of her scars she has from a needle in her stomach and on her legs and arms. She then starts freaking out for really no reason at all. I agree with Miller for getting rid of this repetitive scene. It serves no purpose for the reader.

i agree with everyone cause the scene is good

Toward the Origin

Tuesday, january 27, 2009.

• Post 1: Deleted Scene in The Crucible

“Additionally, when the girls are treated as ‘officials of the court’ with the power to charge and condemn, the thrill in arousing hysteria and anxiety in others, combined with the power to condemn, proves too seductive for a young girl to ignore.” — "Sheffield Theatres Education Resource." Welcome to Sheffield Theatres Checking Plugin. 26 Jan. 2009 )

4 comments:

I read this deleted scene and I must say that I actually enjoyed it. It really was one of the more interesting scenes in the play. I found it interesting how you saw this scene as one of character development for Abigail because, after reading this blog, I would have to agree with you. If it was included in the play it would have added another dimension to Abigail's character and motives, even though that dimension might have detracted from the overall message of the play.

thas crazy because im reading the exact same story and that was not mentioned once .

It should be at the end of the book, it was taken out of the book and play but kept at the end of the book

I don't think that the deleted scene showed Abigail as "insane" at all. I think it's a direct example of how she tries to twist and manipulate Proctor in order to gain his sympathy and also his desire. In many parts of the scene (ie showing him her "wounds" on her presumably bare leg), she seems to be trying to seduce John again. This is a very intense scene and I wish it were included more often.

Blog Archive

• ►  May (2)
• ►  April (1)
• ►  March (6)
• ►  February (4)

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Literature The Crucible

"The Crucible" Literary Analysis

Table of contents, introduction, character development and conflict, symbolism and allegory, dramatic techniques, works cited.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Fifty Shades of Grey
• Book Report
• A Noiseless Patient Spider
• Blackberry Picking
• Measure for Measure
• Annabel Lee

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Advertisement

Harris Faces Party Divisions as She Chooses a Running Mate

The vice president conducted interviews with potential candidates over the weekend and has fielded concerns from donors and activists over the choice.

• Share full article

By Reid J. Epstein Theodore Schleifer and Nick Corasaniti

Reid J. Epstein reported from Washington, Theodore Schleifer from New York and Nick Corasaniti from Asbury Park, N.J.

• Published Aug. 4, 2024 Updated Aug. 7, 2024

The competitive, divisive primary that many Democrats long wanted to avoid has arrived anyway — playing out largely behind closed doors in a fight over the bottom of the ticket.

The final stage of the campaign to be Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate reached something of an ugly phase in recent days as donors, interest groups and political rivals from the party’s moderate and progressive wings lobbied for their preferred candidates and passed around memos debating the contenders’ political weaknesses with key demographics.

They turned most sharply on one of the favorites to join the ticket, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, who has drawn opposition from progressives and even a senator in his home state.

The fissures among Democrats emerged as three leading contenders — Mr. Shapiro, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota — met with Ms. Harris at her residence in Washington on Sunday, ahead of a decision her campaign said would be announced by Tuesday.

Kevin Munoz, a spokesman for the Harris campaign, declined to comment on the meetings.

Ms. Harris is set to hit the campaign trail with her running mate this week, kicking off a five-day, seven-state tour with a rally on Tuesday night in Philadelphia, where Mr. Shapiro is expected to be in attendance, whether he is her pick or not.

Progressive groups have trained their criticisms on Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Kelly, who they accuse of being too conservative on key issues. Shawn Fain, the president of the United Automobile Workers union, said during a Sunday interview on CBS that Mr. Kelly had “not really” assuaged the union’s concerns about his commitment to pro-labor legislation and that the organization had “bigger issues” with Mr. Shapiro’s support for school vouchers.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .