Comparing The Crucible by Arthur Miller and Pygmalion by Bernard Shaw
The Crucible, a play by Arthur Miller, is about a town hysterically overcome by accusations of witchcraft, set in Salem on the East coast of America in the late seventeenth century.
One of the major differences between the two plays is the period in which they are set (Pygmalion is set in the early twentieth century,
The Crucible in the Seventeenth). The different periods in which the plays are set mean that the characters …show more content…
Miller’s diction is formal and concise; the dialogue of The Crucible has a quality that could not easily be achieved in a naturalistic play of the present time. The characters are given a certain dignity and distance by quaint turns of phrase and peculiarities of grammar. The use of Mister as a form of address and 'Goody' as a title suggests a relationship strangely remote; and such phrases such as 'Cain were an upright man', 'there be no road between', 'I am thirty-three time in court in my life', a dialect used by judge as well as peasant, draw attention to another age and environment than ours. For people whose reading material was confined to the bible, it seems natural that their language should be dense in metaphor. It does not sound inappropriate when Hale says, 'If Rebecca Nurse be tainted, then nothing's left to stop the whole green world from burning', or
Proctor, 'I have made a bell of my honour, I have rung the doom of my good name'. This heightened language compliments the symbolic nature of the characters and the deep emotions they try to express.
Pygmalion’s characters exhibit different dialects contained within
English; Higgins is a professor of phonetics and so displays exemplary grammar and pronunciation, Eliza however initially