This essay was written in 2018, though it is still an excellent example of an essay which would receive a 10/10 grade on the comparative section of the year 12 exam.
In a tumultuous era of political and religious upheaval, the archaic power structures in England and New England were reexamined and adjusted prior to the Enlightenment. Both Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’ and Geraldine Brooks’ ‘Year of Wonders’ explore the detrimental aspects of the societies that had developed leading into the 17th century. While Miller seeks to explore the importance of continually challenging those who ostensibly lead us, Brooks focuses on the drawbacks of societies that restrict women. Although both offer hope for free society, neither is willing to express it fully.
Note: this is a solid introduction, though could have a little more direction (i.e., touching on why it's important to challenge these leaders, or what aspects of their lead could be challenged).
Both Miller and Brooks highlight the issue of imperfect authority leading to outcomes that are detrimental to both society and the individual. In Act Four, Danforth and Parris heatedly argue they need Proctor to confess on paper, or else “it is no confession”. Yet, Proctor notes “it is no part of salvation that [they] should use [him]”. While they ostensibly come to save his soul, Parris can only mutter “feverishly” that “it is a weighty name”, as Proctor’s confession to witchcraft will secure the legitimacy of both the court and Parris’ position. The reverend, who should represent Christian values, ironically only increases the “prodigious stench” of corruption in Salem. No amount of death or false accusation turns Parris from his preoccupation with his “enemies”, “deeds and mortgages”, and turning accusations of witchcraft from his family. For him, and for Thomas Putnam who it is suggested has no qualms regarding “killing his neighbours”, the witch trials present an opportunity to use the power of the court for personal gain. Likewise, Danforth’s impenetrable logic based on selective portions of the Bible gives him a reason to continue the trials, in an effort to protect the power of the theocracy he believes in. Unlike Hale, he does not think about the Bible, or consider “life [might be] God’s most precious gift”. By failing to question the religion that governs his actions, he signs death warrants of innocents. While Mompellion in ‘Year of Wonders’ does not sentence people to death for their seeming alliance against the forces of good, the rigid faith in which he holds his beliefs also results in death. Towards the end of the novel, the Rector mourns thinking “he spoke for God”, leading the townspeople “to their doom”. Though burning “with passion for God”, he sees he was “wrong, most shockingly wrong” in his expectations of others. An idealistic man is still a man, and his imperfect judgement as a leader shows the fallibility of humans in power. Thus, while Miller shows authority figures can use their power to achieve their own ends to the detriment of others, Brooks notes this can happen indirectly as a result of human errors in judgement.
Note: this paragraph's strength comes from its close analysis of both texts, and deep consideration of the authors' respective intentions.
Despite this, one cannot pardon such errors when they lead to decay of society. Towards the end of the play, Miller’s characters hear “a bellowing...poor old cow with a hatful of milk”. The blind use of the power of the court has killed and incarcerated so many that both land and beast in Salem are uncared for. Though the Salemites followed “their creed”, believing that “in unity still lay the best promise of safety” from “the Devil’s last preserve”, the danger comes not from outside, but from the subjugated young girls in the play for whom “the repressions of order were heavier than seemed warranted”, and later the attempt of the court to control the alleged witchcraft, “a perverse manifestation of the panic that set in” as a result. Miller points out that unless it is challenged, the rigorous control of society which denies even small freedoms to the body politic eventually implodes, and the resultant crisis can lead to the deterioration of society. While Brooks also sees leaders as being capable of great destructive power, she focuses more on how subjugation of women in repressive society leads to the loss of the benefits an appreciation of femininity can provide. Anna contrasts “the bloody thatcher’s hook” and “tearing at the body with sharp probes” of the barber-surgeons who “did not even turn to look at [her]” with the work that she does later in Oran, using her “mother hands” to work alongside Ahmed Bey to “strengthen and nourish”. By prioritising the approach of men, English society loses what women can provide. The crisis of the plague shows this, as women such as Elinor and Anna step up to fill the positions left by barber surgeons. While they also fill the roles of the Gowdies, Anna is reluctant to do so, aware of “how easy it is for the widow to be turned witch in the common mind”. It is her ability to courageously decide to go against social norms and accept possible death through her challenging of public opinion which allows her to have such an impactful role on Eyam’s survival. So, while Miller argues that blind adhesion to authority restricts individual freedom, and thus jeopardises the continuation of society, Brooks highlights the dangers of a patriarchal and hierarchical social system which risks losing the benefits of femininity unless women are brave enough to go against it.
Note: both this paragraph and the one above it are strong examples of the importance of nuance. The student doesn't shy away from details in the text which don't fit 100% into a given interpretation. The transition sentences from one author to the next clearly show how parts of their message are the same, while highlighting relevant differences. Also of note is that the author doesn't jump to any conclusions beyond what's shown in the texts (e.g. neither Anna nor Proctor are labelled sole saviours of their respective societies, and the outcomes of neither text are exaggerated).
Despite this, both authors cynically criticise societies’ tendency to decay, and elucidate the need for constant adaptation and resistance by the people against authority. While Mompellion’s parting thanks to Anna offers hope for a more humane English society, Brooks notes Anna has to flee England as her newly emancipated character “is in danger…gravely so.” The graphic lynchings of wise Mem and Anys, the latter anachronistically free with her sexuality, show a society bent from the beginning to the end on subordination and control of women. Even Elinor, one of the more free-thinking women in Eyam is killed by Aphra, perhaps symbolic not only of the control of men, but the complicity of women who ensure England will not be free of patriarchal control for many centuries, perhaps not even now in the time Brooks writes. While we question the fate of Eyam, we learn also that even in Oran, where a foreign woman is allowed to become an educated medical practitioner, she must do so as a converted Muslim, “one of [Ahmed Bey’s] wives…in name if not in flesh”. Thus, Brooks laments authority will always have a grip on society. This sentiment is mirrored in ‘The Crucible’. While Miller’s revelatory afterword, “Echoes down the corridor”, literally suggests “the power of theocracy in Massachusetts was broken”, his bland tone and reason for writing suggest otherwise. Written in the 1950s as an allegory for Senator McCarthy’s preying on America’s ‘Red Scare’, Miller’s play depicts a societal phenomenon that proves, where human nature is involved, history will always repeat. He portrays Salem in the same way as he wrote of his own era, in which “all the old political and moral reality had melted like a Dali watch”. The symbols of the seasons and the days featuring in the play, such as Act Four being set in “fall”, give a circular element to his work, and suggest the application of his lesson elsewhere. Perhaps Proctor achieved something for his town, but that “some of the beneficiaries” of later governmental compensation “were actually not victims at all, but informers”, suggests that systems are always corrupt. Humans can challenge power structures to improve situations for others, but they cannot change fundamental human nature, and thus there will always be those among us who use adversity to further their own ends. So, while Miller argues that for social change to occur, one needs perpetual vigilance and people who show integrity and who challenge what is unjust, Brooks argues that any freedom an individual has is going to be within constraints, and that one must make the most of what one can find in an imperfect world.
Both authors mount cases against overbearing and asphyxiating authorities in their respective 17th century pockets of the world, and thus a need for this authority to be questioned and even resisted. Yet, Miller concludes this process must be ongoing for it to be effective, and Brooks notes sometimes society cannot be visibly resisted, only worked along side with. Despite this, neither suggest the efforts of those who challenge authority are thus nullified: rather, they champion those who see a world that might be better.
Graded by: VCAA Assessor
.png)
