Criticisms on The Crucible The drama The Crucible by Arthur Miller tells a story of lies and deceptions. It does a semi-comedic recap of the Salem Witch Trials that happened during colonial times. One critic, John Gassner, states that Miller is “the most ‘constructive’ of recent American playwrights, but has struggled manfully to create a theatre of positive values.” Gassner uses The Crucible to point out these struggles stating that it is a “heroic example” (Gassner). Another critic, Philip Hope-Wallace, claims that The Crucible was very highly esteemed in New York and America, but everywhere else in the world it was not. He claimed it to be “melodramatically ‘moving.’” and compared it the Shaw’s work about witch hunts, claiming that the scenes from Shaw’s work were “so human, wise and balanced that it cleave[d] the heart” (Hope-Wallace). In The Crucible, Arthur Miller is faulted with many structural flaws, underdeveloped characters, and being compared to communism, but it’s an impact of moral responsibility still stands. Nathan faults Miller with poor character development, which prevents an audience to sympathize with them. He says that: “Miller has been remiss in developing character of any close approximation to recognizable warm humanity and thus has denied his audience any of the necessary sympathetic contact with his two central figures, the husband and wife victims of the witch-hunt.” He continues on to say that the final speeches of the character’s at the end of