Wednesday, February 18, 2015
So, what do you think?
After reading the whole play and watching the entire trial unfold, who do you perceive as the protagonists in this play? In other words, whose side do you think you are supposed to be on by the end the play? Are you on that side? Which characters did you find the most sympathetic and accessible? Which characters are difficult to relate to and challenging to under? After answering all these questions in your post, do you think that this play wants you to come to particular conclusions after reading the play? If so, what are those conclusions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think we were supposed to be in Cates side by the end, because he ended up being the hero. I think I am on that side because while reading act 2 and act 3, Brady and his comments especially as a witness were so irritating. Listening to him acting so ignorant and close minded was irritating for me as the reader. I think the character I felt the most sympathetic towards was Rachel, because she had been brought up in such a way where he only knew the Bible as being right, but by the end she understand there could be different opinions, I thought that was the most remarkable and I thought she was very strong to do that. I related most to Drummond who never outright said that faith or the bible was wrong, just that there could be more opinions. I think the best moment was when you combined faith and science to determine that we don't know how long the first day was, and it probably wasn't the 24 hours we know as a day, it could have been 10 million years equals one day. So the world could have been created in seven days, but each day was not 24 hours. I think the conclusion we were supposed to come to was that each should be able to think for oneself, because that was what the trial ended up being. Should kids in school be allowed to think for themselves and determine what is right? Or should it all just be according to the system, with complete disregard to whether the system is right or wrong. I have to say though, I did not really feel anything when I found out Brady was dead.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading this play and watching the trial unfold there are many things that I have come to realize. Such as, my appreciation for Drummond's general sentiment and hope throughout this play. For example, the moment when he talked to Cates about the trial and what the jury thought. "He seems so sure. He seems to know what the verdict's going to be," says Cates and Drummond responds by saying, "Nobody knows." (page 108). I thought this gave hope to the situation and made room for contemplation for Cates about the situation. I also loved Drummond's tale about Golden Dancer and how, "the whole thing was put together with spit and sealing wax! All shine, and no substance! Bert, whenever you see something bright, shining, perfect-seeming - all gold, with purple spots - look behind the paint! And if it's a lie - show it up for what it really is!" (page 109) This is the point where I truly appreciated Drummond and his character. Not only does he support Cates, however, he supports standing up for the truth and not just what the majority believes. Personally, I have grown to hate Brady's ignorant and antagonistic character.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when it comes down to the case itself, I believe that it showed that some people believe in unanimous believing and thinking. It isn't very clear whether Cates won or lost, however, he did make a joke out of a terrible law which will go down in history. Although people in that time are in an ignorant state of mind it will only take time for certain people to realize that what they believe in very well could not be true.
The main characters appear to be Brady and Drummond, though it seems as if the reader is supposed to side with Drummond and Cates. Brady is portrayed as an overconfident and greedy person, who cannot see anyone's opinion but his own. Though he is supported (at least in the beginning) by almost the entire town of Hillsboro, his actions in the play entail that he isn't intended to be the hero. However, Drummond isn't exactly the hero either. Though his character outsmarts Brady in the trial, respects his opposition, he doesn't quite possess heroic qualities. Because of this, he is easier to understand. In contrast, the character of Hornbeck is difficult to relate to. His overly witty behavior, and inconsistent motives make him hard to interpret. Though he certainly isn't a villain, his reaction to Brady's death is unexpected, and disrespectful, unlike Drummond's. None of the characters in this play are simple, and there is no obvious right or wrong. Brady may have been a pig, he never hurt anyone with his stubbon beliefs. And though Drummond was 'the devil' to may citizens of Hillsboro, he could also be considered the protagonist. I think that this play wanted the reader to come to the conclusion that there are two sides to every story, and that exploring new ideas isn't a terrible thing. Everyone has their own opinion, and what is most important is accepting that. To quote the character Rachel in the end of the play, "Maybe what Mr. Darwin wrote is bad. I don't know. Bad or good, it doesn't make any difference. The ideas have to come out."
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Inherit the Wind, I definitely notice that there are many characters who serve certain roles to further the plot. During the trial scene however, I got an impression that the good guy protagonist was Cates, while the prosecutors Brady and Davenport assumed the role of antagonists. However, I wouldn't say that Cates is the single "Hero" of the play. It seems as if his defense (Drummond) was also playing the good guy role. I would definitely say that I am on the defense side with Drummond. After all, the irritable and pompous attitude of Brady makes me root against him. I agree with Suki in that Rachel was the only character who I felt sympathetic for. With her naive nature, she is the kind of character who you just say things are going to be ok to, even when they may not be. As for Cates, I did not feel like he showed much emotion during the events leading up to the trial. His explanation as to why he taught Darwin annoyed me in that "He just taught it". I would also find Drummond the most relatable. Not only does he show more emotion in and outside of the courtroom, his views are not antagonistic, and he showcases his wit by explaining that his suspenders are from Brady's hometown of Nebraska. I think that the main conclusion here is that school teachers should be allowed a say in what they teach, and that independence is key if new ideas are to be discovered.
ReplyDeletet's very hard to answer this question, as the story is much broader than the events in the book. But if I am to make a choice it would be Howard. All the characters take either the holy side or the "evil-utionists
ReplyDeleteI at first through it was Drummond or Cates who I should be rooting for, the warriors, defending my right to think and that was why the case was so prolific. They may be the intended protagonists but with the exception of Rachel, Howard is the only one who isn't on a side. Howard is who the case affects. He isn't important as a character literally but metaphorically. I realized this when Howard was testifying and I thought back to the beginning of the book when he scared that little girl by talking about evolution. They both had been raised with the same values but that boy had the privilege that the girl did not. The right to
DeleteThink
DeleteI think that in the end, Cates was ended up being the hero, and Brady was the real antagonist of the story. I am definitely on Cates' side because in my opinion, he really didn't do anything wrong. I feel that everyone has the right to think for themselves, and that is all that Cates was trying to prove by going against the law. I was against Brady for the entirety of the story because he was extremely arrogant and close-minded. I think that the way he carried himself towards the end of the trial was very unprofessional, as he was sort of acting like a baby who didn't get his way. Once the verdict was passed, even though Brady "technically" won the trial, he was still sour about it. Also, I felt that it was sort of interesting that the author included the part about Brady dying after the trial. It was interesting to me because in the beginning of the book, Brady was almost portrayed as a god amongst men, but at the end of the story, he ended up being the bad guy and a total jerk, and even though he didn't exactly deserve to die, he definitely didn't deserve the high position he was given in the town of Hillsboro.
ReplyDeleteI felt very sympathetic towards Rachel when she was on the witness stand, because she was being forced to speak out against her friend, which in turn helped in proving Cates guilty. I felt as though Brady overdid it a little bit when he was bombarding her with questions while she was on the stand, causing her to have a breakdown. He knew it would be tough for her to testify, but he used the fact that she was under oath to completely counteract her personal feelings, and he even twisted around things she had told him, in order to gain an advantage.
I think that after reading this story, we are supposed to come to the conclusion that everybody has the right to think for themselves, and just because you go against the accepted teachings and ideology of a community doesn't make you a criminal, or any less human than the next guy.
After reading Inherit the Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, I strongly believe the protagonist in this play is Cates. Bertram Cates was the teacher who was put on trial for teaching the theory of evolution. Although he broke the law, and should be punished, the way the author’s make the reader perceive him makes you think otherwise. Both Cates and Brady make very convincing and well thought out points throughout the trial, but something makes the reader lean towards the side of Bertram Cates. Maybe it is because he is trying to make a difference in their small, Hillsboro, community. He is standing against something no one else dared to argue about. Cates sparked conversation in the town, but risked his own wellbeing. There is definitely a moral to this play that goes beyond the fact of there is more to the Bible, there are also different beliefs. This play more so talks about the right to think!
ReplyDeleteI think that at the end of the play we are supposed to be on Cate's. Not only because it was clear that he had an unfair trial but also because the way Brady was presented to us. Brady entered the play as if he had some sort of political agenda and unlike Drummond we never see Brady doing any work to plan his case. In the court room Brady appears to be uneducated and too focused on his reputation with the jury and community than the trail. I am on Cate's side because from my perspective growing up in a home that was not very religious and also extremely accepting I look at this case as a violation of two Constitutional amendments. I also see that Cate's was given an unfair trial and that the judge and jury help a bias. I found that Rachel and Cate's were the easiest to sympathize with and the most emotional characters. We see Cates' venerability during the trial and the writer makes it clear that he never had malicious intentions. When we here why he left the church it is clear that he cares about children deeply as well and his right to thinking. Rachel was torn throughout the book which put Cates at a disadvantage during the trial but I thought she exhibited what a lot of religious people were thinking about during that time. She was torn between believing in the Bible and how she had been taught to interpret it and doing what she thought was right. I found it hard to relate to Brady because of his actions. The party thrown for him when he got to Hillsborough was inappropriate and showed the towns bias from early on. Then when he gave himself ample time to form an argument in court but wouldn't allow a witness for the defense it showed him playing the system and making the trial unfair. When he was on the stand he seemed uneducated and closed minded which made me view him in an extremely negative way. I think that the writers while trying to make us accept the idea of different belief systems and ways a living also said a lot about our justice system. I think that the writers ultimately wanted us to question what we believe and how we force that on others wether or not it is intentional.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the sides at the end of the play are "Evolution" and "Christianity" but "the right to think" versus "only the Bible is right". By the end of the play, I think the conclusion is to be open-minded, to let the readers know that it is okay to think about anything that concerns you. I really connected with Drummond because he was smart and kept his cool when inconvenienced in multiple ways. I really disliked Brady and Hornbeck because they were full of themselves and hungry for attention.
ReplyDelete