Pictured is Arthur Miller. The beautiful girl on his arm: Marilyn Monroe. This is the man who wrote The Crucible, and the very same man who refused to give up his friends while under investigation by the HUAC in the 1950's. However, Arthur Miller also "edited" his son, Daniel Miller, out of his life. Read the following article from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/arts/30iht-miller.1.7317269.html?_r=0
Respond to the following questions in a thoughtful response to this post by midnight, Friday 10/18.
- Having read The Crucible and his essay from 2000 describing his experiences during the 1950's, who was Arthur Miller, i.e. what kind of man was he?
- Does the article from The New York Times change your perception in any way? Explain.
I think Arthur Miller seemed like a normal guy that was just curious about the world and a had a hot wife. He was interested in historical events. He was kind of a communist. Miller was Jewish and he obviously wasn't a Nazi.
ReplyDeleteMy perception of Miller has changed since I read this article. I didn't think Miller was the kind of person to just throw away a helpless child the way he did. He should of loved his mentally ill child just like he loved his other children.
Arthur Miller's, The Crucible, was a really interesting read, however, I never really was fond of him. He struck me as annoying when I read the article for class. His views just made me angry.
ReplyDeleteAfter pretty much throwing his son, Daniel, out of his life I really cant even look at Miller as "annoying" anymore. The more appropriate words would be "selfish" and "cruel." This didn't really change my thoughts of him THAT much because I never really liked Miller to begin with. Poor Daniel... :(
Arthur Miller seemed to be a great man after reading the essay and The Crucible. It seemed as though he was one of the only people who could see the situation, in America, as it really was. I admired the fact that he was so invincible when he faced adversity. In fact, Arthur Miller is exactly the person I'd want to be. Yet, somehow I couldn't stop myself from disliking him. I loved how "in your face" he was with his feelings about communism but why did he have to be so spiteful ? I applaud him for showing empathy toward a group of people who were "different," but he showed zero signs of considering why the government behaved the way they did. He called the entire time period "absurd" which is an unfair statement. America was afraid. When people are afraid, they don't always have the ability to think rationally. So, sure, the situation was slightly "surreal" but I see that as a necessary evil that comes with every form of government. Now, I am not justifying the behavior of the government and its citizens but I can totally understand why it acted in such an irrational way.
ReplyDeleteThe article did change my perception of Arthur Miller, surprisingly. After reading the article, I realized that my views of him were a little harsh. The fact that he practically hid away his son and completely ignored his existence does not bother me. It's so easy to judge other people based on their actions yet we judge ourselves purely on our intentions. I can't possibly imagine how hard it was for Arthur Miller to give up a son and I can only hope that I never have to experience what he experienced.
In Arthur's defense, the HUAC cost Arthur Miller over $40,000. I'd be spiteful too.
Deletehttp://samiyahrhodes.blogspot.com/2013/10/chimps-gone-wild.html
ReplyDeleteArthur Miller seemed to me as rude. The fact that he disowned his own son because he had a disorder is wrong. I also didn't like his point of view on many different things. I did like about him that adversity never phased him. He knew how to handle situations and he could do it in an appropriate way. He didn't seem to me like a nice guy and I am not a huge fan of him.
ReplyDeleteThe article supported my feelings towards Miller. Some things said in the article were almost exactly my feelings towards him. He hid his son away and acted like he never existed and for that my respect for him goes down a whole bunch. The article supported my view on Miller so my view didn't change.
I'm not going to be so quick to make judgements towards Arthur Miller considering I had never experienced what he had. Having a son with downsyndrome was obviously very complicated for him to handle at the time, so hard that he completley cut him off from his life and shipped him off to a mental institution. Although I don't think it was the right thing to do, in the moment he did. I personally think that he was very quick to give up on him, rather see how much he can grow and even learn from him. I think it was a selfsih move on his part, and no child deserves to be left behind, or given up on. The article did change my perception of him because I think he could have been more understanding, and open to the situation. I think it's important to love someone as they are or whatever disabilities or abilities they have, and to cheerish every bit of their flaws.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning I thought Arthur Miller was a great, brave, and intelligent man who didn't give up the names of his friends to HUAC because he was loyal and kind. But even then I found him kind of annoying except I appreciated his bravery. However, what annoys me about him now is the fact that he disregarded his son just because he had Down syndrome. The fact that he could leave his son in an institution and then just cut him out of his life without the decency to even visit him shows what an appalling and lousy human being he was. This article definitely changed my perception of Arthur Miller; I went from disliking certain things about him to disliking him as a person.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I was never fond of Arthur Millers work. His writing was confusing and boring. The Crucible is annoying and irrelevant to my life. It wasn't enjoyable and it didn't teach me anything. From reading Millers essay I can tell he is a very intelligent man that does a lot of research on history. Unfortunatly, its all boring to me.
ReplyDeleteThis article just added to my negative opinion of Arthur Miller. He's a selfish man thats focused on himself and his career only. How could someone put their own child in an institution? Mentally ill or not its still wrong. From reading this article I lost all respect for Miller. I honestly never wanna read another thing of his.
Ouch.
DeleteMy perception of Author Miller after going through the play as a class and painstakingly reading his essay I figured out that he is an immensely intelligent person by just how he viewed the world in the 1950s and connecting it with the witch trails. When he wrote the crucible he was one of a hand full of people who realize how corrupt the United Sates at that time. He knew that the United States did not want communism to spread because it will signify that we are too weak to up hold our way of life, he does understand this but the government was pushing its authority to far. The government was isolating and picking out every communist as if they were the modern day terrorists, and even plays of that time couldn’t hint the most absurd communists believes, so they producers had to make it “non-communist”. I figured that he had enough of the craziness, and so he wrote the Crucible to funnel all the ludicrous things that are related to what is going on in his time.
ReplyDeleteYes I know it was an iniquitous thing to do such a thing as cut off a link to one of your sons, but surprisingly it didn’t change my few of him that much. I’m confused that he did such a thing because in a way it makes him out to be one of the biggest hypocrites out there. In his article he wrote on the Crucible he was more of that person that would fight for the “little guy”, but at the end he forget the most important little guy in his life time. I realize that we are all humans, and in our life times we will have to go through hell and back. Author Miller was going through basically his government and job, plus he might’ve had many kids, so as smart as he is he might’ve forgotten or didn’t have enough time for his mentally disabled child. I’m not trying to defend him of his misdeed, but I realize that we need to know the whole story before we trash Author Miller’s legacy in which he worked so hard on.
He has a complex legacy, that is for sure.
DeleteBased on reading The Crucible, and his essay from 2000, I can tell that Arthur Miller was a well educated, and very opinionated man. He also wasn't afraid to stand up for what he thought was right, like when he refused to give out the names of his friends. Although I may not have agreed with some of Miller's opinions, I did respect him because he seemed like a confident man and he was a good author.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times article did somewhat change my opinion on Miller. If your child has a mental disability, you love them unconditionally and try your best to raise them. And if you do have to put them in an institution because it may be better for them, you continue to visit them as much as possible. I did loose a little respect for Arthur Miller when I learned about him putting his child in an institution; however we do not know Arthur Miller's reasons for doing so or how hard of a decision it must have been.
From reading Arthur Miller's The Crucible and his essay from 2000 you can tell a lot about who he is as a person. During the 1950's he was being questioned by the HUAC to give up names of his friends that were also communist, but Miller refused and gave no names. From both of these pieces of literature you can tell that Miller is extremely intelligent and a gifted writer, who knew what really happened throughout the period where communism was greatly frowned upon. Although Arthur Miller was very intelligent and aware of what was going on around him he was very biased in his own way, I personally do not agree with some of Miller views but I respect the way the man held himself and did not let other people, like the HUAC, take away who he was and what he believed (giving the names of his communist friends).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the New York Times article about Arthur Miller and him "abandoning" his child with Down Syndrome my view of Miller changed a bit. Yes, it was a different time and it was much more common to put children with disabilities in institutions (he was also on his third marriage and having a child like that can put stress on the relationship) but he did just that, put his disabled son in a institute and left him there. He rarely visited, while his third wife Inge Morath visited weekly, Miller also never mentioned his son to any of his friends or even in his memoirs. I lost respect for Arthur Miller after being informed through the New York Time article.
Arthur Miller seemed like a real stand-up guy that supported his beliefs no matter what anyone else had to say about it. He used his intelligence to portray humor and make people from the Salem witch trials seem stupid and same with the people that tried to do him wrong in the making of his movie. This causes me to have a peculiar respect for him even though i don't believe in the same things as him.
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated, i have a weird respect for him, although some of his life choices weren't the best. I do not agree with him disowning his son for the disabilities because that is morally wrong and no one should do such a thing. Therefore, my perspective on him didn't really change. This is because everyone makes mistakes and his just seemed to be a lot worse than others, but no one mistake should harm someones reputation for the rest of their life.
From reading The Crucible by Arthur Miller and his essay from 2000, my perception of the man would be that he's really opinionated, he has no problem getting his point across and that he is very successful.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the New York Times article about Arthur Miller, my view of him did change a little. It states that Miller put his son, Daniel, in an institution because he was born with Down Syndrome and hasn't kept in touch, or reconnected with him since, basically just cutting him out of his life. This does change my view on him, no one should give up on someone just because they're "different" than them. I have to admit that I lost a little respect for Miller after reading this article. I can't wrap my head around the fact that he just gave up on his own child and put him in an institution.
Arthur Miller was more of a shocked kind of guy, a guy who was random. He is biased. The article didn't change my perception of Arthur Miller in any way because people with disorders like down syndrome were ut where other unique children were put in his times: the asylum. According to the article, Dickstein proved my point by backing it up with logic and the culture in the 1950's and the 1960's by asking the question what we will do if we were Miller.
ReplyDeleteBased on his writings and The Crucible, Miller seems to be someone to support freedom to say and believe in what you want. He understood the irony and humor, while also identifying the cruel reality of the whole Communism situation in the 1950's while, at the same time, drawing parallels to the Salem witch trials. He was a very man with very successful and articulate plays and writings.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, he was kind of a butt about his son. See, I'm not really mad at the fact that he put his son into a home. Although it was mean to do, he had a very busy career and, according to the article, this was very common at the time he was born. What I AM mad at is the fact that he essentially shunned him. For being someone who supports human rights, he was a real meany to put his son into a home and then continue to never acknowledge him or visit him at all. The least you could do is support him, dude.
"...kind of a butt...": is this a technical term?
DeleteAfter reading The Crucible and his essay Arthur Miller seemed like a very intelligent, opinionated man who had something to say about everything. He seemed like an okay guy that was very well educated. After reading this article, my perception of Arthur Miller has only changed a little. I think it is very wrong that he shut his son with down syndrome out of his life. He should have loved him just like his other children. But like the article said, it is only a small part of who he is. We can't judge someone off of one thing that they did that was wrong. If the world were like that then we would all hate each other because no one is perfect and we all make bad decisions sometimes. Also, it was more common to put a kid with down syndrome in an institution in the 60s than it is today. I do think Miller shouldn't have cut his son out of his life but you can't judge how you feel about someone by one wrong thing they did in their life.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the Crucible and the essay from 2000 you can tell that Arthur Miller has a sense of humor and that's he's very intelligent and a very opinionated man.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article though, my personal opinion of Miller changed a quite a bit. Just because your child has a mental disability doesn't mean that you should send them away to an institution. That's your child, and you should embrace them no matter what.
After reading the essay written by Arthur Miller from the first sentence we can see that he is such an intelligent man. He seems like that kind of guy that just his presence makes you feel intellectually inferior. I think he is very funny and sarcastic. His writing style is phenomenal and kept me interested and entertained the entire time. However, my respect for the man has somewhat changed. I understand back then people didnt know what to do when their child is afflicted with a cognitive disease and only knew to send them away, but to completely ignore the child like it never exsisted? That is terrible. Your own flesh and blood and youre going to disown it because youre embarrassed. Awful. Arthur Miller was an amazing author and play write, but his parenting skills were definitely questionable.
ReplyDeleteWriters oft times do not make good parents.
DeleteArthur Miller is a clever kind of guy who writes in a way I found very enjoyable. I usually am bored with books read in school, however they style of his writing was very interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the New York Times article about Arthur Miller, my view on him does change a little. He put his son Daniel in a institution because he was born with Down syndrome. However, we have to keep in mind that back then times were different.
After reading Arthur Millers The Crucible and his essay from 2000, my perception of this man was that he was very true, honest and had integrity. He seemed very intelligent which I tell see by the way both texts were written since he had a wide understanding of various political concepts. Also, in his essay when he refused to give up the names of other people, Miller seemed like a very courageous and ethical man. However, the article from The New York Times completely changes my perspective of him. Even though he seemed to be a mastermind with a supermodel wife, the cowardly actions of disowning his own son completely change my opinion of him. While trying to protect his public reputation of being a wonderful human being, Miller did one of the worst possible things you could do as a parent. Ashamed of having a son with down syndrome, he erased his son out of his public life by institutionalizing him. This article simply proves that what people look like on the outside is not always their true character. In my eyes, all of the heroism that Miller portrayed is now tarnished. He cared more about how people perceived him rather than what would be best for his family. Before reading this, I saw Miller as the righteous Giles Corey, however now he seems to be more like Parris, who was self-centered and cold to children.
ReplyDeleteInteresting analogy.
DeleteAfter reading the crucible and the article 2000, my perception of Arthur miller is that he was a man who had a very strong sense of self. He was a man who stood for what he believed in no matter what the cost and he never let society change his mind. Arthur miller was an independent thinker and one of the most well respected men of his time, he will be remembered as a man who wasn't afraid to embrace originality even when others frown upon it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the New York Times article my perception f Arthur miller was altered. I couldn't believe that he would turn his own son away and erase him from his life. After everything I had read about him I wouldn't have come to the assumption that he would make such a harsh decision. But I do not his choices in his personal change the fact that he was a very intelligent man who laid the foundation for many new things in america. Arthur miller turning away his son was very shocking but people should not incorporate his private life with his public affairs.
After reading Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and his essay, I saw him as rather intelligent and strong. I could tell by his writing and by the way he tied his experiences with McCarthyism and the Salem witch trials together that he was very smart man. The struggles with his career and issues that he had to deal with proved him to be strong and brave. He also had plenty of perseverance; he stood up for what he believed in and did not let anything get in his way.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the article does not undermine his intelligence or his writing skills, it does damage my view of his character. After reading the article, I see Arthur Miller as less of a man. I now see a coward who did not want to deal with, or was scared to deal with a mentally challenged son. He should be ashamed, he not only institutionalized his own son; he also disowned him and wanted nothing to do with him because of his mental disability. I have now lost an amount of my respect for Arthur Miller.
After reading Arthur Miller's The Crucible and his essay he wrote in 2000 I thought of Miller as a Very smart man with excellent writing skills and a vivid imagination. By the way he wrote I can tell that he felt good when he was writing and he needed to get something out of him that he couldn't just say because of McCarthy.
ReplyDeleteI recently discovered that Arthur Miller had a son who was born with down syndrome. He completely denounced him as family and never visited him. At first I thought of him as an insensitive jerk who is kind of like Reverend Parris in The Crucible. But after reading the article I discovered that it was common for parents to but mentally challenged sons or daughters in mental retardation institutions. Also, Miller most likely didn't want to lose any more respect or lose more of his reputation; because of McCarthy and his followers. So I didn't lose all my respect of Miller just a little bit of it.
I know this is late and I'm really sorry but here's my response:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Arthur Miller's The Crucible and the essay he wrote in 2000, I thought of Arthur Miller as a well spoken man who stood firm in his beliefs. I actually enjoyed reading the article he wrote because he used a lot of voice in his writing, which helped me understand the article better.
When reading The New York Times article about Miller's down syndrome son, my view of Miller changed somewhat. Even if one of your children is born with a mental disability, it is your job as a parent to love them anyway.It's understandable that some people may not be able to handle all the responsibility that comes with it, but if you are putting your child in a mental institution, it should be one of your priorities to visit them. And even though I don't agree with the way Miller handled that situation, I can see where he's coming from. Also, the article explains how it was common during that time to put a mental disabled child in an institution. So I don't hate Arthur Miller for how he decided to handle his situation but I did lose some respect for him.
After reading The Crucible and the essay I thought Arthur Miller was very smart and honorable for not giving up his friends names. He stop up for whatever he believed without caring about the consequences of his actions which is admirable because not many people would do so.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read The New York Times article about Arthur Miller's institutionalized down syndrome son my opinion changed. I lost respect for him in many ways. Just because your child is born with a mental disorder does not mean you should just completely erase him from your life. I know that during the time period it was common to put your child in a mental institution but you should visit them if not everyday then often. I understand that that must have been very hard to handle but I think there was a better way of handling it.
I'm really sorry this is super late but here is my response:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article that Arthur Miller had written in 2000, I thought that he was a very well spoken, intelligent man. He stood for what he believed in and no one could possibly change that.
When I first heard Mr. Clark say how Arthur Miller basically threw his handicapped son out of his life, my view of him changed in an instant. If you have a child with a disability, mental or otherwise, you shall love them no less than any other child you may have. I actually did not finish reading the article because I could not believe that a man would abandon his son like that. However, if a mental institution is necessary for the health and well-being of the handicapped child, that is a different story. I believe that that should not have caused Miller to rarely/never visit his youngest son, Daniel. This may affect me more than others because this is quite a sensitive subject for me since, my only and older sister, is mentally handicapped, even though she does not have down syndrome, her boyfriend does. I unconditionally love my sister like any sibling should, even though she gets on my nerves a little shy of 24/7. Growing up with a handicapped sibling, the fact that Arthur Miller put his son in an institution put a knot in my stomach. I could never imagine putting Kasey in an institution, and if she needed to be in one, I couldn't imagine not visiting her. Despite somewhat understanding his decision to institutionalize his son, I do not agree or understand his decision to throw Daniel out of his life.
It may have eaten at Miller's conscience. After Daniel, he never matched the success of The Crucible or Death of a Salesman.
DeleteAfter reading Arthur Miller's, The Crucible, I did not really get to know Arthur Miller as a person. All I know about Arthur Miller, which we discussed in class, is that he is Jewish, married to Marilyn Monroe, wrote The Crucible, and had a son with down syndrome. Besides those things, I don't know who he is as a person so I can't really tell you exactly what kind of man he was. But if I was going to jump to conclusions I would say he was just a regular guy just doing his own thing, living life.
ReplyDeleteActually, yes, while I was reading The New York Times article I was just in disbelief thinking that such a famous man could do this to his own child. You would think with his superiority he would try and get help of some sort and try and fix the problem. Putting Daniel in the institution and never expressing any type of affection towards him again is actually kind of a cowardly move on Arthur's part.
Once i read Arthur Miller's, The Crucible and the article I thought highly of Arthur Miller. He seemed so smart and well spoken throughout his writings and thoughts, The Crucible was interesting and kept my eyes glued to the book from his humor and funny remarks. Miller knows a lot about history and what went on during the communism period. I thought Miller was brave and a good person for not giving up his friends that were also communists. Although he seemed like a amazing person after reading the New York Time article my opinion changed a bit about him. You can not judge someone for one mistake they made because sometimes people do not know what to do or process something they are unfamiliar with. Daniel had a problem and Miller did not want his son, so he put him in a institute and just did not pay attention to him. He left Daniel to be by himself and I think that is wrong and ridiculous. I do not think totally wrong about Arthur Miller but he did do a bad thing and that is not right.
ReplyDeleteI thought Arthur Miller was outstanding in the work that he did. He was very well educated . When he wrote the crucible , and as I was reading it, it intrigued me because of the twist and coils it kept me trying to figure out. To me personally it was a great book. But when I read the article , it was drastic for what he did with his son. That was not good parenting.
ReplyDelete