Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The theme of power in the crucible
The theme of power in the crucible
The theme of power in the crucible
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The theme of power in the crucible
Brilliant Lies - In many ways, Susy is just like Gary. Do you agree?
In many ways, Susy is just like Gary. Do you agree?
Susy Conner, and Gary Fitzgerald. Both are Brilliant liars - and
seemingly total opposite gender counterparts of each other. To say
however, that they are alike simply because they are liars is to place
them into a frame that is far too restricting and incomplete. No, the
similarities - and even differences - between Susy and Gary lie
beneath the surface. It is in these more subtle ways that the two
characters reveal themselves to be more alike than one would think.
At the heart of Susy and Gary's personalities is that one trait that
seems to set them apart from the rest of the characters of the play -
ambition. Theirs is an intense, bordering on violent, ambition - a
drive to succeed in life, to gain what they want - and neither have
any scruples about running over everyone else to get what they want.
They are not above lying to get their way, not above gaining trust and
then throwing it away once they have what they want - this is shown in
no clearer way than when Gary convinces Vince to support him, then
throws him to the wolves at the end - "I lied. Don't get pious Vince.
This place was ripe for a management buy out. These are hard times.
We've got to become much more aggressive, and you know, and I know,
and they know that you haven't got the guts to go in hard."
This manipulation of others extends to include their extremely
vengeful natures. Susy's vindictiveness in lying to Katy about
Marion's sexuality (revenge for Katy telling the truth about her story
- "As soon as I saw that dyke I knew you'd fall in love with her." -
is mirrored by Gary's pleasure in crushing Vince after he reveals his
true colours.
They are cruel to an almost merciless extent - the vicious battle
between the two is more than a fight in order to win the case - it is
a fight for survival. Both Gary and Susy know that if they are not
relentless in the pursuit for triumph, they will be crushed by the
other - another characteristic that they share - the obsession for
power. In a way, the struggle between these two characters is not for
the compensation money - but for the sense of power that comes only
from triumph.
Another trait that they both share is a sense of stubborn self
righteousness that somehow constantly places themselves in the role of
The characters address the audience; the fast movement from scene to scene juxtaposing past and present and prevents us from identifying with particular characters, forcing us to assess their points of view; there are few characters who fail to repel us, as they display truly human complexity and fallibility. That fallibility is usually associated with greed and a ruthless disregard for the needs of others. Emotional needs are rarely acknowledged by those most concerned with taking what they maintain is theirs, and this confusion of feeling and finance contributes to the play's ultimate bleak mood.
A significant aspect of the play is the acting and wardrobe, because it helps demonstrate the personalities of the characters.
It is with this understanding, in which most have learned when to battle as well as when to withdraw and fight another day. "You sure that about 'equality ' was a mistake?" "Oh, yes, Sir," I said. "I was swallowing blood." "Well, you had better speak more slowly so we can understand. We mean to do right by you, but you 've got to know your place at all times. All right, now, go on with your
of pride about who they are. The rich are put down in this play very
due to the differing perspectives; and who the ‘victor’ of the situations was. Finally, this paper
the main theme of the play. With out this scene in the play I don’t
He explains that when a conflict arises, we are less capable to take on the situation and are more likely to hand it off to authorities. He then comes to the conclusion of how they are overlooked, in terms of importance, and that individuals own their conflicts as one would own property. Furthermore, he justifies that these properties are stolen by law, therefore, no longer owned by individuals. Christie urges the need to eliminate ‘professionals’ from the sphere of conflict resolution in order to prevent the theft of conflicts. He explains his perspective of “conflict as property” as not relating to material compensation but rather to the ownership of conflict itself. He then recognizes the effects of victim losing the “property” originally, and puts forth a fix for this process. He introduces a way to remodel the justice system for dealing with conflicts in which the court is victim
adds to the comedy of the rest of play. It is obvious to the audience
in their destiny for a better future, causing them to go back to second hand
themes of the play and helps us gain insight on other characters. I find the following quote to be
of the things that has been part of their lives since birth and they are too dependent upon it.
Throughout the years there have been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented, they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply, among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved.
Characterisation is vastly different in the film when compared to the play. This, however, is done so as to make more sense to a modern
In this chapter, Heinrichs argues that people have an issue with differentiating between arguments and fights. He cites ancient philosophers and studies about marriages to support his argument that when people resort to fighting rather than arguing to resolve issues, their outcome is inevitably doomed. They fight to win and overpower the opponent, whereas they argue to win over the audience, and the latter provides them with an outcome in which both parties are appeased. Heinrichs further argues this idea by pointing out the benefits that come from persuading one’s opponent through an argument, namely, that no vengeful reactions are incited and the opponent leaves the argument agreeing with the other person, not angry at them. He supports
‘A dispute is a problem to be solved, together, rather than a combat to be won.’