Fidelity and Innocence

“I think the answers will be found in the nature of the creative act. A good play is a good thought; a great play is a great thought. A great thought is a thrust outward, a daring act. Daring is of the essence. Its very nature is incompatible with an undue affection for moderation, respectability, even fairness and responsibilities.”

I was struck by this paragraph in the Many Writers: Few Plays essay because I think it says something important not only about creativity, but also about Miller himself. The fact that he wrote The Crucible in the 1950s when there were so many people facing persecution for being a communist is significant. To many, the play is an allegory of the time period, and it shows that Miller wasn’t afraid to speak out against the persecution happening around him. The story comes from history, but it does speak out against “witch hunting.” Writing this play in the 50s was a daring act because of the potential repercussions of doing so. This is what he wants from other playwrights as well. He wants people to take some kind of stand on something they believe in. I don’t know that Miller is saying that storylines cannot be recycled, since it is hard to find one that hasn’t been, but rather he want writers to bring something else into the story. Miller wants the writer to be able to make it original for themselves. I think that in order to prevent Japanism, people have to be able to express their ideas as original in some way even if they are using a storyline that has been done a number of times. How can writers take something old and make it feel new? I think that’s what Miller is trying to get at. His play The Crucible does that by taking a stance on something he believes to be wrong, McCarthyism. Miller wants writers to use their creativity to “reflect the soul-racking, deeply unseating questions that are being inwardly asked on the street.” He wants writers to be daring enough to answer these questions in their plays.