Reflection #3

      The first part of The Crucible, in my opinion, was kind of confusing. I also thought that it was very interesting. I do not feel as though it was written by a Puritan. It did not totally possess all of the qualities that I have previously seen in works by Puritans. The "pure" writing was not really there. Arthur Miller really did not reference God. There were talk of spirits, but not necessarily the spirits of God. The talk was also kind of different compared to the "normal" Puritan writing. I do not think that Puritan writing was reflected very well within the first part of The Crucible.
      God was not very well referenced in the first part of The Crucible. I actually only remember him being referenced once. When giving the background information, mainly the introduction of the story, it was mentioned that old scores could be settled in heavenly combat between Lucifer, which is the devil, and the Lord (Miller 8). That is the only reference that I remember towards the Lord and other things that are spiritual in that sense. Spirits were mentioned many times, but I do not feel as though they were quite the spirits we hear of. Abby says how Parris knows that Tituba conjured Ruth's sisters to come out of the grave, which is a big no-no (Miller 18). When Betty finally awakes, she says she wants to fly and fly with her mama. The only problem is that her mother is dead (Miller 19). This leads me to believe that her mother is in heaven, so that could be another reference to God. Overall, I do not feel that God was a big priority in The Crucible. Other Puritan works seem to have a lot stronger belief system, and it was not well represented in this novel.
     The type of writing was also not what I expected when referring to Puritans. Most Puritan works do not use figurative language, but more straight-to-the-point talk. In the first part of The Crucible, the talk is not elaborate, but it is not as to-the-point as previous works. The work seemed to be in more detail. Abigail talks about all what she and the other girls did and their repercussions from their actions. But everything was in great detail (Miller 20). I would have expected it to be straight to the point. I imagine, if written by another Puritan, it would have said what they did and what happened to them. That is all. There would be no great details, and everything would be right there in front of you. The writing style was just not what I imagined from a Puritan.
     Overall, I do not think that the writing was very "Puritan-like." It did not include a strong belief system like previous works by Puritans. It also did not have the people totally trusting in God. The writing style was a little different. It was not flowery, but it was not straight to the point like other Puritan works. I do not think that Arthur Miller's The Crucible, well act one, was a very good representative of Puritan writings.

MIller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York: Penguin, 1982. Print.