John Proctor Reputation

Words: 633
Pages: 3

What’s In A Name?

“What bends, can break.” (Marty Rubin, author of Boiled Frog Syndrome). Although John Proctor exuded strength throughout the course of The Crucible, his true character shined through in the most desperate of moments. In Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible, the events of the 1692 Salem Witch Trials unfolded in a detailed and emotional way. John Proctor, an unstable and relatable character, stood out in particular.
John Proctor in the very beginning concerned himself mainly with his reputation, as well as, occasionally, the wellbeing of his family and his community. He attempted to carry himself in a very stereotypically hypermasculine fashion, but the glimpses of raw emotion that he showed were when he truly distinguished himself from other characters. When he wasn’t trying to keep up appearances, he made
…show more content…
One would think that distinguishing the moral alignment of his character would be easy given the circumstances with Abigail and Elizabeth, but determining this can actually be very difficult. Was John Proctor a self-righteous man more concerned with his reputation than living for his wife and his unborn child, or a truly good person who made mistakes and would rather keep his last shred of dignity by hanging with those who were innocent and faithful? Truly, Proctor’s morality seems to be a conflicting subject. Elizabeth believed, in his last moments, that John had redeemed himself and proven himself to be a good man. Although the subject is often found conflicting, as Elizabeth put it, “I cannot judge you, John.” (Miller, The Crucible, 135).
In conclusion, John Proctor changed both very little and very much in the entirety of the play. The character of John Proctor ended up being a very elaborate and deep part of the plot. Say what you want about John Proctor, but he turned out to be the very backbone of The Crucible. He proved that there is much more to a name than what’s on the