Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Arthur Millers play The Crucible and Kazuo Ishiguros novel Never Let Me Go both yield the power to challenge assumptions about the insignificance of the human individual when pitted against the collective. Executed through the characterization of their respective protagonists, Miller and Ishiguro offer similar insights into the ramifications of individual passivity, which creates opportunities for oppressive societies to endure. Millers choice form of historicism also allows the play to function as a mimetic performance that critiques repressive ideology and his elevation of John Proctor, of the common man, into an archetypal hero serves his purpose of inciting human agency among ordinary individuals who face injustice. This is not unlike the way Ishiguro crafts language within his novel to expose the lack of initiative possessed by his own protagonist and condemn the anomalous psychology of inaction that deviates from the natural human urge to seek liberation from confinement. Though they diverge in their methodology, Miller and Ishiguro are consequently able to undermine the expectations of individuals who believe they have an insubstantial impact on their public worlds.
In The Crucible, the characterization of John Proctor through his desolate struggle against a problematic ideology that became hubristic in its attempt to be righteous has, in turn, allowed Miller to exhibit the unexpected power of individuals against the larger society. The play itself is classified within the genre of American realism where Miller has attempted to provide us with a representation of his own observable reality, the McCarthy era. His dramatic exploration of John, an unlikely and common hero, seeks to present the human quality of defiance in a positive light and encourage individuals to challenge oppression in their society. In Johns proclamation, Now& all our old pretense is ripped away& , he is suggesting the hysteria gripping Salem has unfortunately brought out humanitys true nature, one that shows no resilience against fear or self-preservation. John continues with, …we are only what we always were, but naked now… , which ultimately complements Millers purpose to expose this central flaw retained by humanity that is observable over and over, again and again in real historical events. In his characterization of John as an individual willing to sacrifice something as precious as his reputation in order to challenge the collective, figures of reality are echoed such as Miller himself as well as other individuals in his society, journalists, and lawyers, who defended the accused during the McCarthy trials. In the play, Johns refusal to comply with social pressure is meant to display the way that individual dissent eventually becomes a powerful tool in changing the course of a repressive society. John becomes archetypally representative of the tragic hero, and holistically The Crucible is a celebration of the common man and his ability to use his own voice to defy the collective. Millers historicism is thus able to lead us to his revelatory purpose, and he has used his form to establish this aspect of individuals like John as fundamental to the bettering of the collective human experience.
Like Miller, Ishiguro also uses the characterization of his protagonist, Kathy, to denounce the tragedy of inaction, where collective repression persists as a result of the apathy of individual beings. Ishiguros approach slightly differs from Millers nonetheless, as he instead characterizes Kathy as an individual who is willfully ignorant to the brutality occurring around her, where living people are essentially subjugated to a public utility. In Never Let Me Go, Ishiguros implicit opposition to passivity through Kathy leaves a cathartic impression on his audience as we experience frustration towards Kathys easy acceptance of fate. This is already apparent in the early chapters of the novel where Kathy boasts I do know for a fact theyve been pleased with my work, and by and large, I have too . What is demonstrated is Kathys embracing of and conformity to the status quo, to the extent that she even prides herself on her capabilities to provide care to the donors, despite having already witnessed herself by the time the narrative begins, the cruelty of her society that deprives people of freedom and degrades them into vessels for organ harvesting. Furthermore, woven into Kathys narration is the referral to donors who have reached the end of their viability as complete , a euphemism for an inhumane death that characterized the rhetoric of Kathys oppressors, something that she has chosen to emulate herself. In Never Let Me Go, we are driven to realize on our own that inaction and ignorance are mechanisms that allow injustice to perpetuate, and that the resistance of individuals is utmostly important in overcoming this, in order to improve the experience of the collective. As put by Robbins, It would seem to follow that Ishiguro must also be urging us, if only obliquely and subliminally, to take some sort of action against this horror. , in lieu of accepting Kathys passivity.
Thus, both Miller and Ishiguros purpose become synonymous, to demonstrate the gravity of individual insubordination and rescind any assumptions that individuals hold no power over the collective. In The Crucible, the audience is conspicuously positioned in historical reality, Miller uses theatrical didacticism to stir the agency of individuals who are exposed to injustice and overturn their assumption that their actions have a limited impact on the collective through his characterization of John and utilization of historicism as his form. Never Let Me Go resonates with its audience in a corresponding manner, with Ishiguros characterization of Kathy and his use of language to obliquely criticize inaction, and conversely provoke everyday individuals to defy collective oppression.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.