Contradictory to what was taught in class, owning property does not necessarily name a man noble. During a verbal dispute with Mr. Putnam, John Proctor states, “You cannot command Mr. Parris. We vote by name in this society, not by acreage” (TC, 1.1040). Mr. Putnam and John Proctor are corresponding characters. Both men own property as well as practice the Puritan religion territory. Mr. Parris, on the other hand, holds the position of Reverend of the Puritan Church of Salem. He does not dominate nearly as much estate as John Proctor or Thomas Putnam, he does not even own the vestry he lives in, nevertheless he still seems to have exceeded the power in Salem in comparison to the two men. If anyone is noble, it would be Mr. Parris, not John Proctor. John Proctor is not extraordinary. He has ownership of numerous acres of territory, he cultivates the acreage he owns, also he rarely goes to church. If that is what you consider noble, then aristocrats make up almost the entire town of Avella. Overall, it seems like John Proctor subsists as a moderately mediocre individual, nothing noble at …show more content…
He is not an admirable man, his fortune is not fantastic to begin with, the audience should not pity him, he is not noble, and his destruction does not prove a point. If identified by a character archetype, John Proctor should be located with Robin Hood or Han Solo in the category of the rebel. A rebel is defined as “a person who resists any authority, control, or tradition” (Dictionary.com). For example, Robin Hood steals from affluent people and gives to the less fortunate. John Proctor correlates to Robin Hood because he goes against the people in authority to stand up for what he believes in. Even though he has a downfall and his death is tragic, that does not necessarily make him a tragic hero. Han Solo had