Scarlet Letter Vs Crucible
Is it possible for one man’s truth to be another’s lie, or is it that the two’s interpretation of the absolute truth differ? Truth cannot be viewed from a subjective perspective for then there would be endless “truths”, rather, the truth must be viewed objectively for the fact that it is. Despite the obvious flaw with subjective truth, many believed, and still do, in its reasoning. Authors Nathaniel Hawthorne and Arthur Miller of The Scarlet Letter and The Crucible, respectively, both write about how Puritans, filled with fear and ignorance, blindly believed the subjective statements and accusations they heard without considering the objectivity of the truth. In the Scarlet Letter, two opposing views of Roger Chillingworth and Mr.
…show more content…
In The Crucible Danforth, the judge, blindly believes nearly every claim he hears and rather than make an objective conclusion with presented information, he strictly relies on subjective accusations. For example, he ignores the fact that the accused women were loyal church-goers and that nearly a hundred credible people declared the women’s innocence to instead listen to teenage girls name witch after witch with no evidence at all. Said best by Proctor, “Why do you never wonder if Parris be innocent, or Abigail? Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers” (Miller …show more content…
For instance, at one scene in the play, Elizabeth was arrested for witchcraft which stated that she stabbed Abigail through a puppet and needle, but at that very scene Mary admits it was her doll. Later when brought up in court, Danforth as well as Cheever ignores the fact that the doll with the needle in it belonged to Mary, in order to speculate upon whether Elizabeth had other dolls. This series of events represents how Miller views the truth, or rather, how others view and create their own “truths”. Danworth particularly, but also Parris and Cheever believe the lies they hear and ignore the truths they see because they are in their own, subjective reality, where the absolute truth holds little
In The Crucible Danforth, the judge, blindly believes nearly every claim he hears and rather than make an objective conclusion with presented information, he strictly relies on subjective accusations. For example, he ignores the fact that the accused women were loyal church-goers and that nearly a hundred credible people declared the women’s innocence to instead listen to teenage girls name witch after witch with no evidence at all. Said best by Proctor, “Why do you never wonder if Parris be innocent, or Abigail? Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers” (Miller …show more content…
For instance, at one scene in the play, Elizabeth was arrested for witchcraft which stated that she stabbed Abigail through a puppet and needle, but at that very scene Mary admits it was her doll. Later when brought up in court, Danforth as well as Cheever ignores the fact that the doll with the needle in it belonged to Mary, in order to speculate upon whether Elizabeth had other dolls. This series of events represents how Miller views the truth, or rather, how others view and create their own “truths”. Danworth particularly, but also Parris and Cheever believe the lies they hear and ignore the truths they see because they are in their own, subjective reality, where the absolute truth holds little