“The Crucible” In “The Crucible” by Arthur Miller, the play reflected the “Red Scar” in early 1953 to 1950s which it dedicated the play as against liberalism and socialism. John Proctor and Abigail Williams could potentially end the hysteria by standing against the trial. Americans also became afraid of immigrants during the Red Scar, which created fear. They could have also avoided the affair and admitted their sins during the trial. I also believe they both admitted that the accusations were made about innocent people. In the crucible of Act V, John Proctor realized the situation of the accusations being made having the community blaming innocent people where he could have ended hysteria but chose to become a by standard. He did not want …show more content…
As the hysteria rises, Abigail and John Proctor are stuck between deceit and desperation. Abigail tries to manipulate the court to increase the chorus in the courtroom. She did this to maintain control and power. Later on, Proctor confronts Abigail about the truth about his guilt for his actions. Their relationship becomes challenging since they can’t be together and becomes chaotic. Proctor doesn’t set a limit to Abigail, which is why the relationship of the affair escalated to wanting more. While some may argue that Danforth could have done more to end the hysteria of the eventual realization of the chaos and injustice, he could have curbed the hysteria. A closer examination reveals that he reconsidered a brief change which then shows doubts. Danforth acknowledges the possibility of false accusations. While we know that Danforth's actions came late to the hysteria, he tries to show accountability for his actions. He also acknowledges the flaws in the courtroom that are being said in the trial about the innocent people in the community. In conclusion, “The Crucible” illustrates the character's actions by explaining their sins and how they could have ended the